Unless there is a special reason, the evidence of the written confirmation shall not be readily denied, unless there is a case where the written confirmation has been drafted compulsorily against the will of the originator.

The plaintiff submitted a certificate to the effect that the plaintiff omitted the value-added tax and global income tax without making business registration during the tax investigation process.

Article 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Cheongju District Court 2016Guhap976

OO

OO Head of the tax office

oly 2017.13

2017.27

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is the representative director of AA Tour Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "AA") who runs the transportation business.

B. As a result of on-site verification of AA, the director of the tax office of defendant OOO provided transportation services, such as students, teachers, and staff, using a personal vehicle without registration of the plaintiff as a result of the on-site verification of AA, and discovered the omission from the income amount of value-added tax and global income tax ex officio on the plaintiff's business registration after filing a report on the income amount of the first half of 2010, 201, 10, 201, 2011, 200, 100, 2012, 200, 100, 2013, 100, 2013, 100, 2013, OO00, 100, 2014, 200, 2000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the income amount in this case").

C. Accordingly, on May 1, 2015, the head of the Defendant’s tax office referred to as the Plaintiff on May 1, 2015 as the first quarter of value-added tax, the second quarter of value-added tax for 2010, the second quarter of value-added tax for 201, the first quarter of value-added tax for 201, the first quarter of 2012, the OO, the second quarter of value-added tax for 2012, the second quarter of value-added tax for 2012, the OO, the first quarter of 2013, the first quarter of value-added tax for 2014, the OO, the first quarter of 2014, and the head of the Defendant OO’s tax office referred to as the Plaintiff on June 8, 2015, the notice of each of the instant disposition as global income tax for 2010, the global income tax for 2011, the global income tax for 2012O.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number)

Statement, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is a physically handicapped person who was selected as a basic recipient and was unable to engage in economic activities for several years, and thus is not capable of paying taxes pursuant to the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant disposition must be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

On the other hand, unless there are special circumstances, such as that if the tax authority has received a written confirmation that the amount of income was omitted from the taxpayer in the course of conducting a tax investigation, it may not be readily denied only the evidence of the written confirmation, unless there is any special circumstance, such as that the written confirmation was forced against the author's will or it is difficult to use it as the supporting material for the specific facts due to the lack of its content. According to the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff submitted a written confirmation (Evidence No. 2) to the effect that "the amount of income of this case was omitted from the return of value-added tax and global income tax without the registration of the business operator, while providing the transportation service without the registration of the business operator." Thus, the disposition of this case based on the written evidence No. 2 (Evidence No. 3) is legitimate unless there is any special circumstance, and the plaintiff's assertion that the tax payment ability is not unlawful in itself, and there is no other assertion or proof that the disposition of this case is unlawful.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.