Suwon District Court-2014-Guhap-53057 ( August 27, 2015)

Disposition Disposition Imposing Value-Added Tax

It is recognized that the notice of tax investigation to the plaintiff, delivery of the right charter, etc., extension of the period of investigation and its notification, notification of the result of tax investigation, etc., and the omission of the amount of revenue of the franchise of this case in the above tax investigation with respect to the plaintiff was made and that

Article 57 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2015Nu59039 Disposition of revocation of imposition, such as value-added tax

CHAPTER A

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court-2014-Guhap-53057 ( August 27, 2015)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The value-added tax for the first period of December 1, 2008 that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2013.

4,267,10 won, value-added tax for the first quarter of 2008, 19,784,110 won, and value-added tax for the second quarter of 2008.

12,609,390 won, value-added tax for the second quarter of 2008, 8,497,260 won, and value-added tax for the second quarter of 2008.

4,813,670 won, value-added tax for the first period of 2009, value-added tax for 24,776,850 won, and value-added tax for the second period of 209

23,62,800 won, value-added tax for the first period of 2010, 9,483,580 won, global income tax for the year 2008

176,348,480 won, global income tax of 2009 KRW 131,759,090, global income tax of 29,976,300 for the year 2010

Each disposition shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, (b) pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Additional determination

원고는, 이 사건 모텔에 관한 부과처분은 별개의 사업체인 @@@에 대한 세무조사 과정에서 확보된 장부에 근거한 것인바, 이는 별건 세무조사에 기한 것으로 위법하다고 주장한다.

그러나 을 제9 내지 12호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재와 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 서울지방국세청은 처음부터 신고 내용에 탈루나 오류의 혐의가 있다는 이유로 @@@ 및 원고를 세무조사 대상자로 선정하여 2013. 6. 4.부터 같은 해 8. 27.까지 @@@에 대한 법인제세 통합조사 및 원고에 대한 개인제세 통합조사(2008년도 내지 2011년도 귀속분)를 동시에 실시한 사실, 그 과정에서 원고에 대한 세무조사 통지, 납세자 권리헌장 등 교부, 조사기간 연장 및 그 통지, 세무조사결과 통지 등이 행해진 사실, 원고에 대한 위 세무조사에서 이 사건 모텔의 수입금액 누락이 밝혀져 이 사건 처분이 이루어진 사실이 각각 인정된다.

Therefore, since the disposition of this case is not based on illegal separate investigation, the prior plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted on a different premise.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.