Cho High Court Decision 201Do1423 ( October 27, 2011)

Value-added tax on the basis of a written confirmation is legitimate.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff sold recyclables, etc. at the time of the tax investigation and submitted to a tax official a confirmation letter stating that the Plaintiff sold recyclables, etc., and the customer prime market department also provided recyclables, etc. from the Plaintiff and stated the details on payment to the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to see the Plaintiff as

Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Guhap27797 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

XX

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

December 6, 2011

February 2, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 8,851,270 on January 1, 201 and value-added tax of KRW 36,752,110 on February 2009 against the Plaintiff on January 1, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China conducted a tax investigation (hereinafter referred to as the "tax investigation of this case") on XX Q pet (the representative director, GuA, hereinafter referred to as the "P pet") and confirmed that the Plaintiff supplied the supply price of 301,469,000 won during the value-added tax period from 1, 2009 to 2, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "market transaction amount"), and notified the Defendant of the pertinent taxation data after confirming that the Plaintiff did not report value-added tax.

B. Upon notification of the above taxation data, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 8,851,270 on January 1, 201, and KRW 271 value-added tax 36,752,110 on 1, 209 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 1, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 27, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is an employee employed by the representative KimB of BB BB (former trade name) at the time of 2009 and transported the instant non-stock in accordance with the direction of KimB. However, the instant disposition that deemed the transaction amount to be the Plaintiff’s sales on the sole basis of the fact that the original market book of XXM was entered as if the Plaintiff purchased the instant non-stock equivalent to the key transaction amount from the Plaintiff, was unlawful.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s 2 to 9 BB testimony of the former 20 BA; (b) the Plaintiff’s 20-year supply of the 20-year supply of the 20-year supply of the 20-year supply of the 20-year supply of the 20-year supply of the 20-year supply of the 20-old supply of the 20-old supply of the 20-old supply of the 20-old supply of the 20-old supply of the 20-old supply of the 20-old supply of the 20-old supply of the 12-year supply of the 20-old supply of the 20-old supply of the 20-old supply of the 12-year supply of the 20-old supply of the 20-old supply of the 20-old supply of the 12-year supply of the 12-year supply of the 2-old supply of the 2-old supply of the 3rd supply of the 2.

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

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.