The attachment disposition of this case by legitimate taxation is legitimate.

After calculating corporate tax and value-added tax by deeming the difference between the tax base of value-added tax and credit card sales reported by the Plaintiff as the omission of sales, the disposition of this case which seized credit card sales claims before the due date of payment is legitimate.

Article 14 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Ghana 101954 Damage, Title 201

AAAult Co., Ltd.

Korea

September 7, 2012

September 14, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is entirely dismissed.

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

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 20% interest per annum from the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Facts recognized;

A. On March 15, 2011, the Plaintiff (Seoul AAA, which changed on December 12, 2011, was established for the purpose of clothing wholesale business, etc., and the head office was transferred on November 25, 201 to 000 O-dong O-dong, Busan (O-dong, Busan).

B. From March 29, 2011 to March 31, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a consignment agency contract between the Plaintiff and the O card, the O card, the OO card, the OO card, the OO card, and the O bank card, and the BBBB (hereinafter “BBB”) on April 5, 201.

C. After that, the Plaintiff received notice of KRW 000 as the value-added tax for the first period of July 25, 201 from the head of the Busan District Tax Office on July 2011, and paid the full amount on July 25, 201.

D. However, on February 1, 2012, the director of the competent tax office attached the Plaintiff’s credit card sales claims against each of the above credit card companies pursuant to Article 41(3) of the National Tax Collection Act by having the Defendant as the amount of delinquent tax the sum of KRW 000 and value-added tax of KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”).

(e) the SelectionCC is the director of the City Tax Office, the Defendant (Appointed Party), the Selection EE, the ParkFFF, and the otherGG are employees working in the City Tax Office;

Grounds for Recognition: Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings of Gap evidence 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 (including each number);

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Defendants were in arrears with corporate tax notified by the Plaintiff on January 201, and even before the Plaintiff was established at that time, such taxation disposition is null and void. In addition, the Defendants were in arrears with the value-added tax notified on July 201, and there was no tax in arrears due to the Plaintiff’s full payment of the tax notified at that time. Therefore, the instant attachment disposition based on the Plaintiff’s default of corporate tax and value-added tax was unlawful. Furthermore, the instant attachment disposition is unlawful. Furthermore, the instant attachment disposition does not meet the requirements for attachment attachment, and is unlawful against excessive prohibition. Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties were either intentionally or by negligence, and Defendant Republic was the employer, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment of KRW 00,000, which is part of the damages to the Plaintiff.

2) Summary of the defendants' assertion

The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties, who are public officials of Silung Tax Office, discovered that credit card sales amount is excessive compared to the value-added tax base reported to the tax authority, and confirmed the possibility that the Plaintiff would be a disguised credit card holders through the local real estate inspection. Accordingly, the above tax should be calculated based on the omitted sales amount to the Plaintiff, and the expected amount of value-added tax on 271, 201, which reflects the omitted sales amount, recognized it as difficult to collect, and rendered the instant attachment disposition pursuant to Article 24(2) of the National Tax Collection Act. Accordingly, the instant attachment disposition is lawful.

(b) the applicable law;

1) Article 14 of the National Tax Collection Act (Collection before the due date)

(1) The head of a tax office may collect the determined national tax from a taxpayer even before the payment period, if the duty falls under any of the following subparagraphs:

7. Where it is deemed that there is an attempt to evade national taxes; and

2) Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act (Seizure)

(2) If the head of a tax office deems that a taxpayer cannot quota national taxes after the determination of national taxes due to a cause falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 14 (1), he/she may seize the taxpayer's property to the extent of the estimated amount of national taxes.

3) Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act (Procedures for Attachment of Claims)

(1) When the head of a tax office attaches claims, he/she shall notify the obligor of the relevant claims.

(2) Upon notification under paragraph (1), the director of the tax office shall subrogate the obligee who is the defaulted taxpayer within the limit of the delinquent amount.

(3) When the head of a tax office attaches claims under paragraph (1), he/she shall notify it to the delinquent taxpayer.

C. Determination

1) On or around July 25, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) reported the VAT base for value-added tax for the amount calculated on or around February 25, 201 with 00 won; and (b) on or around January 25, 2012, with 200 won each reported the VAT base for the amount calculated on or around February 25, 2011; (c) the Plaintiff’s credit card sales amount for the same period (not later than 3, 4, and 5) reached 00 won; and (d) on or around January 31, 2012, the public official belonging to the Silsi-si-si Office did not have any other reason to recognize that the Plaintiff’s sales amount for the first time was unlawful under Article 10 of the National Tax Collection Act by considering that the Plaintiff’s sales amount for the second time was not included in the pertinent tax base for the pertinent case’s 20 years, and that there was no possibility that it would have been no other evidence or evidence to be included in the Plaintiff’s tax base (2).

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is decided as per Disposition, since all of the claims of the plaintiff are without merit.