Seocho 2014west 3164, 2015.20

It is reasonable to see that there is a sale of goods to the head of the branch office and the Cod in accordance with the distribution structure.

Since there is no objective evidence that the head of the branch office sells goods to the team leader, etc. and denies the indirect sales structure of goods to be sold to consumers by the team leader, etc., it is reasonable to view that the head of the branch office team and the Cod have purchased goods from the

Article 12 (Exemption) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 35 (Scope of Personal Services) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014Guhap8978 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

August 18, 2016

September 22, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's disposition of imposition of value-added tax 6,480 won for the first term of 20 XX 10 years against the plaintiff (the "101,870 won" stated in the complaint's claim seems to be a clerical error of '6,480 won'), value-added tax 1,398,230 won for the second term of 200, (the "2,08,310 won" stated in the complaint's claim seems to be a clerical error of '1,398,230 won), value-added tax 2,389,960 won for the first term of 200, 200 (the "1,922,670 won" stated in the complaint's claim seems to be a clerical error of '2,389,960 won for the second term of 20 years, '200, 1079, 570 won for the second term of 270 won for the second term of ', 1970 won for each claim.7

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was registered as a business owner under the trade name of 20 XX. X. XX. OOO, and was engaged in the business of receiving and selling the body supplement clothes (hereinafter referred to as “goods”) from O in the position of the head of the branch office of O (hereinafter referred to as “OO”).

B. After investigating and discovering the Plaintiff’s omission of part of the purchase amount with respect to the O, the Defendant estimated the sales amount equivalent to the omitted part of the purchase amount for each item at the consumer price of XX. The Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 1,914,70 of value-added tax 1,914,70 of value-added tax for each period of 20 XX, 200, value-added tax 1,922,670 of value-added tax for each period of 20 XX, 200, and 2,088,310 of value-added tax for 20,000 for each period of 20,000 (hereinafter “original disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant under Article XX. The Defendant’s failure to report the sales

20 XX. X. XX (26.91% of 2009; 26.91% of the total profit rate;

After estimating in accordance with 27.23% in 2010, the value-added tax was revised and notified from 20 XX 1 to 20 XX 20 years in the same content as the claim of the Plaintiff.

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal 20 XX. X. XX., and the Tax Tribunal decided to conduct a reinvestigation 20 XX. X.

E. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant disposition was justifiable as a result of the investigation of value-added tax according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal to conduct a reinvestigation on a request for a trial.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including each number of branches), and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The sales of goods to the Plaintiff’s team leader and coaches (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s team leader, etc.”) may not directly purchase goods from the OO’s policy team leader, etc., the tax processing is conducted by purchasing and selling the goods to consumers using the Plaintiff’s code, the head of the OO’s branch, and the transaction was conducted by paying a certain amount of fee to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s sales of goods to the team leader, etc. are not subject to the imposition of value-added tax on the sales of the goods to the Plaintiff’s team leader, etc.

2) At the time of the instant disposition, the Defendant did not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the disclosure of information on taxation data, etc. and did not go through legitimate procedures, such as due process, such as failing to comply therewith.

B. Determination

1) Whether there exists sales of goods between the Plaintiff, the team leader, etc.

In full view of the purport of each entry and argument in Eul evidence 7, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the supply price of the branch in the O's marketing and import example materials; (b) KRW 224,00; (c) consumer price; (d) KRW 484,00; and (c) KRW 434,00; and (d) the head of the team; (b) the sales of the branch's consumer; and (c) the part arising from the sales of the branch's consumer; (b) direct sales (10 x 260,000 = 2,600; 2,000; c) the sales of the head of the branch's team; and (c) the part arising from the sales of the head of the group, etc. of the branch's team; and (d) the fact that the Plaintiff purchased all the goods from the O's purchase tax return and payment from the O.

In this fact, as shown in the official data prepared and distributed by the OO, the structure of so-called "indirect sales" refers to the case where the head of the branch sells goods to the head of the team, etc., and the head of the team, etc. sells goods to consumers. The price of the goods sold by the head of the branch is the case where the head of the team purchases goods from the head of the branch, etc., and it is difficult to find objective evidence that conforms to the plaintiff's assertion, other than the confirmation of the fact that the head of the team, etc. prepared by the head of the team, etc.,. Meanwhile, it is difficult to find out other objective evidence that conforms to the plaintiff's assertion. Meanwhile, from the time of registration as the time of the application for the registration of the Cineter and the contract (Evidence A No. 4): from the time of registration as the Cineter of the sales team and the company as the manager of the company as the manager of the company. However, such a provision alone does not seem to be meaningful and reasonable to purchase the goods from the O team.

2) Whether legitimate procedures are complied with

According to the records in Gap evidence No. 7, at the time the defendant notified the results of the reexamination of the request for a trial by the Tax Tribunal, it is recognized that the plaintiff was allowed to only peruse the resolution and refused to peruse the confirmation letter prepared by the head of the team, etc. However, the plaintiff's request for the disclosure of information by public agencies is in accordance with the forms and procedures prescribed by the Public Agency Information Disclosure Act, and there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff's request for the inspection of the above letter of name and the confirmation document against the defendant was in compliance with such requirements, and even if the defendant refused the plaintiff's request for the disclosure of information, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed unlawful. Moreover, there is no evidence to support that the defendant had seriously performed the re-inspection order by the Tax Tribunal at the

C. Sub-committee

The instant disposition to the same purport is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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