logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.07.17 2014구합229
개별소비세부과처분취소
Text

All of the claims of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) are entrepreneurs engaging in the business of filling and selling liquefied petroleum gas for vehicle fuel.

B. The director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office’s investigation into the Plaintiff, etc. and the Defendant, from November 1, 2012 to November 20, 2012, the director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff, etc. of the results of the investigation into the distribution process tracking of fake petroleum products: ① the Plaintiff, from January 1, 2010 to January 20, 2012, and ② the appointed person, during the period from January 2010 to June 2012, issued the orders for each liquefied petroleum gas manufacturer’s wholesale business, and then sent the tank Crori vehicle to the professional wholesale business, received the tank loaded into the tank to the professional wholesale business, and confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff’s act of storing and selling them to the Plaintiff, etc., and notified the Defendant of the fact that the act of selling them as a tank.

C. On July 8, 2013 and July 11, 2013, the Defendant separately notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of individual consumption tax and education tax on the Plaintiff, etc., of KRW 61,090,740, and KRW 58,732,840, as individual consumption tax and education tax (including additional tax, and as follows, “individual consumption tax, etc.”), from January 8, 2010 to January 201, 2012; and the designated person on July 11, 2013, of KRW 58,732,840, respectively, from January 201 to June 201, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”) d.

On August 22, 2013, the Plaintiff et al., dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case, requested an inquiry to the Tax Tribunal on August 22, 2013, but dismissed on November 20, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers).

arrow