beta
Text
1. The defendant against the plaintiff:
(a) Value-added tax listed in Annex 1 Disposition No. 1 of December 1, 2012, respectively.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff was a company established in around 1996 for the purpose of plastic and raw materials recycling and wholesale retail business, which recycled plastic wastes after its incorporation and produced and sold vinyl or plastic raw materials (PE or PVC products; hereinafter “rerelicing products”).
B. The Plaintiff sold recycled products, and received the price from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff ( Nonghyup Bank B) and the Nonghyup Bank D and the Nonghyup Bank under the name of the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “C and E account”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice and filed a value-added tax return for each taxable period from 2002 to 2012 and filed a corporate tax return for each business year.
C. The Daejeon regional tax office conducted an integrated investigation of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax from August 30, 2012 to November 16, 2012, confirmed that the Plaintiff omitted sales of KRW 11,072,863,096 deposited in the borrowed account from 2002 to 2012.
After being notified by the Director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office of the aforementioned results of the investigation, the Defendant issued a notice of correction of the total amount of KRW 2,01,036,201 value-added tax from February 1, 2002 to February 2012, 2012, and notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of KRW 10,333,57,694 as bonus for G, the representative director of the Plaintiff, and issued a notice of correction of the total amount of KRW 4,174,726,790 as of December 3, 2012. The Defendant issued a notice of correction of the total amount of KRW 4,174,726,790 as of January 15, 2013 to the amount of KRW 3,54,240,750 from January 202 to 2012.
E. On February 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on February 15, 2013, claiming that some of the amount deposited in the borrowed account, regardless of sale, should be excluded from omission of sale. On February 27, 2014, the Director of the Tax Tribunal re-examines whether the amount deposited by the Plaintiff through the borrowed account is an omission of sale.