The omission of value-added tax due to omission of sales

The Defendant’s disposition of this case, which imposed global income tax and value-added tax, etc. on the Plaintiff by deeming the sales under the instant installment financing agreement as the Plaintiff’s sales, is unlawful

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 1, 1998 to June 20, 2001, the Plaintiff engaged in the sales of domestic electronic equipment in the name of ○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, respectively.

B. The head of ○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed that there is a 176 sheet of installment financing agreement in the name of the non-party ○○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○○○”) (total supply value of KRW 331,560,000) is highly likely to be the Plaintiff’s sales amount; and (b) notified the Defendant on August 17, 200

C. Accordingly, the Defendant decided on October 1, 200 to impose the Plaintiff value-added tax of KRW 48,332,210 and value-added tax of KRW 12,711,430 for a period of two years in 1999, global income tax of KRW 48,332,210 and value-added tax of KRW 12,71,430 for a period of two years in 1999, and value-added tax of KRW 48,332,210 for a period of two years in 1999, and value-added tax of KRW 12,71,430 for a period of two years in 199, and value-added tax of KRW 12,71,430 for a period of two years in 199, April 1, 2004.

D. However, 106 of the above 176 installment financing agreement (the supply price of KRW 189,414,00) was confirmed to be the sales of the non-party Jung-○ (the plaintiff's business in Seoul ○○○-dong, ○○○○, engaged in the sale of the electronic equipment for home use, such as the plaintiff's business contents) and notified the defendant on March 11, 2005.

E. Accordingly, on April 8, 2005, the Defendant issued a re-decision to reduce the amount of value-added tax for the first term of 1999 by KRW 14,089,320, the amount of value-added tax for the second term of 1999, the amount of value-added tax for the second term of 199, KRW 11,759,750, and the amount of comprehensive income tax for the year 199 as KRW 95,002,860, and notified the Plaintiff thereof (hereinafter the instant disposition).

(Evidence) Evidence Nos. 2-1, 2-2, 1-1, and 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As it was confirmed that 106 of the above 176 of the installment financing agreement was not the Plaintiff’s sales, the remaining 70 copies (the supply price of KRW 142,146,00,000) are not the Plaintiff’s sales for the following reasons. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition that deemed this as the Plaintiff’s sales and imposed the value-added tax and the general income tax is unlawful.

(1) The Plaintiff: (a) supplied pop-up containers, ice cream makers, etc. from the ○○○ and the sales commission was made to the sales commission; and (b) on the other hand, the sales commission was paid to the sales commission, but the above sales commission was separately sold by the sales commission. Sales under the instant installment financing agreement is not the sales commission of the Plaintiff to the sales commission; (c) the sales commission was not the sales commission of the sales commission; and (d) the sales commission was the sales commission.

(2) In order to put the seller into convenience for installment sales in the case of an independent sales, the Plaintiff connected the seller to the seller before the ○○○○ installment financing company and the installment financing contract was concluded. Accordingly, the seller entered into an installment financing contract under the name of the ○○ Electric Technology Company while selling the product to the customer, and accordingly, the ○○ Electric Technology Company received a limited sales fee from the installment financing company and paid it to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff again paid it to the salesperson.

(3) The Plaintiff did not employ the above salespersons and did not pay monthly wages, nor did it pay insurance premiums, such as health insurance and unemployment insurance, etc., nor did it purchase the premium corresponding to the sales under the instant installment financing agreement.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The plaintiff paid benefits to the sales salesperson as the name of "temporary payment" and " bonus", and since the sales revenue based on the installment financing agreement was deposited into the plaintiff's bank account, the sales revenue based on the installment financing agreement of this case should also be viewed as the plaintiff's sales. Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Determination

A. If Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 5-2, 6-1, 6-1, 64, and 7, and Gap's testimony are gathered to the purport of the whole pleadings, the following facts are recognized.

The Plaintiff: (a) requested the Plaintiff to sell the Plaintiff’s product, such as spop-up spop-up, which is a salesperson; and (b) paid sales commission to the Plaintiff on a summer or a monthly basis. Meanwhile, separately from the sales of the Plaintiff’s product, the salespersons purchased used goods independently from the sales of the Plaintiff’s product, and sold them to the customers. The salespersons concluded the instant installment financing agreement (142,146,000 won for sales in 1999) under the name of the Plaintiff’s seller while selling the used goods to the customers; (c) the down payment was directly received by the salespersons, and the remainder was to be paid in installments. According to the installment financing agreement, Nonparty 1, a company of installment financing, a company of installment financing, was to receive the down payment. Nonparty 1, a company of installment financing, pursuant to the installment financing agreement, paid to the Plaintiff, who was the name of the installment financing contract, after deducting a certain amount of commission from the installment payments received from the customers. The Plaintiff was finally paid to the Plaintiff.

B. We examine the following facts: (a) if the sales under the instant installment financing agreement were to be made by the Plaintiff, there is no reason for the Plaintiff to pay the sales price to the Plaintiff; and (b) however, if the Plaintiff paid the sales price, it can be known that the sales price was not caused by the Plaintiff’s sales of the goods requested by the Plaintiff; (c) therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the sales price under the instant installment financing agreement was to be the sales that was made regardless of whether the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff’s business employee (if the sales were to be made by the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the sales price was to be the sales that was made regardless of whether the sales price was the Plaintiff’s business employee (i.e

C. According to the monetary receipt and disbursement book presented by the Plaintiff, it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid money to the salesperson under the name of "provisional payment" as claimed by the Defendant, but it can be used in the above term when paying sales commission for the sale of the product that the Plaintiff requested the sale. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize the sales under the installment financing agreement of this case as the Plaintiff's sales.

D. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition that imposed global income tax and value-added tax, etc. on the Plaintiff by deeming the sales under the instant installment financing agreement as the Plaintiff’s sales is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.