A taxable pleasure place subject to imposition of individual consumption tax;

The instant workplace is mainly equipped with alcoholic beverages and entertainment facilities, and gents equipped with stage equipment, etc. can dance while drinking alcoholic beverages. As such, the instant workplace constitutes entertainment tavern which is a taxable entertainment place provided by the Individual Consumption Tax Act.

Article 2 of the Individual Consumption Tax Act

2016Guhap73726

AAAA et al. 2

BB Director of the Tax Office

April 28, 2017

May 26, 2017

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

DefendantCC Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall revoke both the notice of change in each income amount listed in the [Attachment 1] List of Notice of Change in Income Amount, and each value-added tax, individual consumption tax, and education tax disposition listed in the [Attachment 2] List of Disposition in the [Attachment 2] which Defendant BB Tax Office, and FB Tax Office Commissioner of the National Tax Service against the Plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff Company AAAA (the trade name before the change: the Plaintiff Company hereinafter “AAAAA”) was established on February 10, 201, and registered its business with the trade name at the place of business of 0,00, FF-Gu N00 (F-dong) underground floors (hereinafter “instant place of business”), as “g clubs, GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG,” and operated the business by the end of October 201 after obtaining permission from the F-head of F-head of March 11, 201.

B. On October 31, 2012, Plaintiff DDDD (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and HH were to take over the instant workplace from Plaintiff AAAJ on October 31, 2012, jointly with the III and the JJ, and jointly with Plaintiff AAJ, “DD DD DD (N), type and type of business as “food/other main store business”; III and JJ as a joint business proprietor; and C and JJ reported the correction of the business registration of the instant workplace; and the head of FF head of the FF head as Plaintiff HH’s representative and run the instant workplace from March 31, 2015 to March 31, 2015 with the permission of an entertainment bar business under the Food Sanitation Act.

C. The shareholders of Plaintiff AAA are three (45%) shareholders, KK (30%), JJ (15%) and OO (10%). The representatives of Plaintiff AAA and Plaintiff DDDD are KK, while the representatives of Plaintiff ADDD and Plaintiff H H shares are 20%, each of them is 20%.

D. From September 24, 2014 to January 31, 2015, Defendant AAAA Commissioner of the National Tax Service conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant tax investigation”). As a result, the instant place of business falls under the entertainment tavern subject to the individual consumption tax, and the Plaintiffs were found to have omitted a report on part of the revenue amount received in cash as indicated below while operating the instant place of business, and notified Defendant BB head of the tax office and the FF head of the tax office of the said report. On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff AAAA and Plaintiff DDD were notified of changes in their income amount as indicated in [Attachment 1] List of Notice of Changes in Income Amount.

E. Defendant BB head of the tax office and the FB head of the tax office imposed each individual consumption tax and education tax (including each additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the Plaintiffs, such as the list of the attached disposition [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] list of imposition disposition (hereinafter the above imposition disposition of individual consumption tax and education tax is referred to as the "disposition such as the instant individual consumption tax, etc.", the notice of change in income amount and the imposition disposition such as the instant value-added tax, the individual consumption tax, etc.

F. On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 2, 2015, upon filing an objection against each of the instant dispositions, but was dismissed on May 31, 2016.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 8, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. Defendant AAA Commissioner of the National Tax Service commenced the instant tax investigation without a ground to select the Plaintiffs as the subject of the tax investigation. In the case of Plaintiff AA’s tax investigation with respect to Plaintiff AA, the scope of the tax investigation is extended to individual consumption tax not originally subject to the tax investigation, but did not notify Plaintiff AAA of the expansion of the tax investigation. As such, the instant tax investigation is unlawful, and each of the dispositions of this case based on illegal tax investigation

B. In light of the legislative purpose of the Individual Consumption Tax Act to restrain high-priced private acts and the fact that the ratio of the area occupied by dance halls in the workplace of this case is low, the workplace of this case does not constitute entertainment tavern that is subject to the individual consumption tax, and thus, the disposition of imposition, such as the individual consumption tax, is unlawful.

C. The Defendants imposed an estimated tax even if the amount of the Plaintiffs’ cash revenue is accurately consistent with the account amount and the amount of the deposit account, and thus, the Defendant’s position belts based on the calculation of sales was not sold for a fee, and thus, did not meet the rationality and feasibility of the estimation method. As such, the instant notice of change of income amount and the imposition of value-added tax based on such estimated tax are unlawful.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination on the legitimacy of each of the dispositions of this case

A. Whether the instant tax investigation is lawful

1) Facts of recognition

A) The instant place of business was a place of business where Plaintiff AA had a dance hall built to enable customers to dance with the trade name “LL”, and reported and paid the individual consumption tax.

B) The Plaintiffs, from the F head of F, operated the instant workplace by obtaining permission for entertainment bar business under the Food Sanitation Act from the F head of F, and on October 31, 2012, only when Plaintiff AAA was operated and Plaintiff DDD and HH were jointly operated by Plaintiff AAA, and the type and method of business are identical. The type of business of the instant workplace had already been widely known through Internet tables, etc. prior to the instant tax investigation.

C) On September 19, 2014, Defendant AAA Commissioner of the National Tax Service notified each tax investigation to Plaintiff AAAA as the “corporate entrepreneur’s consolidated investigation (including corporate tax, value-added tax, source tax, and stock change investigation),” and the investigation period from February 10 to December 31, 201, with the tax items to be investigated to Plaintiff HH as the “individual entrepreneur’s consolidated investigation (including income tax, value-added tax, source tax, individual consumption tax, and individual consumption tax),” and the investigation period from January 1 to December 31, 2013, respectively. The investigation period for each of the above notifications is analyzed as a result of an analysis of the contents of the report for the subject period, and includes Article 81-6(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 81-6(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.”

D) After that, on December 17, 2014, Defendant AAAA Commissioner of the National Tax Service notified Plaintiff H H of the extension of the scope of investigation into the individual consumption tax from January 1, 2014 to October 31, 2014 on the grounds that Plaintiff H was suspected of omitting reporting the individual consumption tax.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5 (including each number in the case of additional notes), Eul evidence Nos. 11-1 through 3, 5, and 6, part of Eul evidence No. 11-4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination on the illegality of the selection of a person subject to tax investigation

A) Legal principles

In full view of the relevant provisions of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 13552, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) and the background and purport of the introduction of Article 81-6 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes concerning the criteria and method for the tax investigation (hereinafter the same) and the background and purport of the introduction of Article 81-6 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the act of collecting taxation data selected as a subject of tax investigation while there is no ground to select a subject of tax investigation under Article 81-6 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and thereby imposing taxation based on it is in violation of the due process principle and Articles 81-4 and 81-6 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court

B) Determination

Article 81-6 (3) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a taxpayer may conduct a tax investigation in addition to an investigation conducted through regular selection if the taxpayer fails to fulfill his/her tax compliance obligation, such as reporting, under tax-related Acts.

However, the instant workplace constitutes an entertainment drinking house which is a taxable entertainment place under the Individual Consumption Tax Act, and the fact that the Plaintiffs did not report and pay the individual consumption tax with respect to the instant workplace is not disputed between the parties. Meanwhile, Article 81-11 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a tax investigation shall be conducted by combining the items of taxation for which they are liable to report and pay in accordance with the tax law in relation to the taxpayer’s business, and that a specific item of taxation may be investigated only where there are reasons provided for in Article 63-12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes. On the same day, Defendant AAAAAAA Commissioner of the National Tax Service notified Plaintiff AAAAA and Plaintiff H of the tax investigation as the “corporate business integration investigation” and the “integrated investigation of individual business operators, including the “individual consumption tax” in the notice of the Plaintiff H”. In full view of the aforementioned facts, Defendant AAAAAAAA Commissioner may be deemed to have commenced the tax investigation of the instant taxable entertainment place under the Individual Consumption Tax Act and the individual consumption Tax Act.

Therefore, it is legitimate to select the Plaintiffs as the subject of tax investigation on the grounds that they fall under Article 81-6 (3) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. This part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is rejected.

3) Determination on Plaintiff AA’s assertion of omission in notification of extension of the scope of investigation

The plaintiffs' assertion is premised on the premise that the individual consumption tax was not included in the investigation at the time of commencement of the tax investigation of this case with respect to the plaintiffs AAA. The tax investigation of this case is an integrated investigation that is conducted from the beginning of the tax investigation of this case to the plaintiffs, including individual consumption tax, and the fact that the defendant AAA Commissioner of the National Tax Service notified the plaintiffs in advance that the tax investigation of this case was an integrated investigation. Thus, it is not illegal regarding the omission of notification in the tax investigation of this case with respect to the plaintiffs AAA. This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is rejected.

B. Whether the instant establishment constitutes subject to imposition of individual consumption tax

1) Facts of recognition

A) The instant workplace obtained a business license from the FF-gu Office as an entertainment drinking house falling under Article 21 subparagraph 8 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, posted a banner that “it is possible to leave as an entertainment drinking house permitted business establishment,” at the front entrance of the workplace outside the workplace,” along with alcoholic beverages, and sells food, etc. accompanied by alcoholic beverages.

B) Within the instant place of business, the interior of the instant place is provided with tables and chairs, and a space for DNA (DJ) was installed on the front, and around 20 square meters was placed in the front of the instant place of business so that visitors can enjoy dancing, and there is a specialized device for visitors, such as a special lighting instrument such as slurgs, slurgs, and various special sound facilities, with which visitors can enjoy entertainment when enjoy dancing.

C) There are about 460 rooms (30 square meters) to keep goods at the entrance of the entrance, which was used for the purpose of keeping the belongings in order to prevent the loss of possession between visitors who dance.

D) The business hours of the instant place of business from 19:00 to 05:00 on the following day. From 21:00 on the ordinary day of the day to 20:00 on the weekends, DNA from 20:00 to 20:00 on the weekends engaged in a type of business in which dances dance while they drink while drinking alcohol, and this is also confirmed even in the number of visitors posted on the Internet blogs.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Eul evidence 3 through 5

(ii) the entry or video of Eul No. 11-1 and 2, Eul's partial entry of No. 11-4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2) Determination

Article 1(1), (4), and (12) of the Individual Consumption Tax Act and Article 2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate that the individual consumption tax shall be imposed on entertainment drinking and eating at entertainment taverns and places of business actually engaged in similar business as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act. Articles 21 subparag. 8(d) and 22(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act provide that the business of cooking and selling alcoholic beverages is a business of cooking and selling alcoholic beverages, which is a business of employing entertainment workers, or installing entertainment facilities to enable entertainment workers or customers to dance, and the business of which customers are allowed to sing or dance is classified as entertainment drinking business.

According to the facts acknowledged above, the instant workplace mainly sells alcoholic beverages in the instant workplace, and a dance hall is installed, and its customers can enjoy dancing while drinking alcohol. Thus, the instant workplace constitutes entertainment tavern, which is a taxable entertainment place as provided by the Individual Consumption Tax Act, because it is equipped with stage equipment, sound and reflecting facilities, special lighting facilities, etc.

Meanwhile, the subject of the individual consumption tax is entertainment and eating at a specific place, and the Individual Consumption Tax Act does not impose any limit on the structure and scale of entertainment taverns, which are places where the individual consumption tax is imposed. Therefore, the “area of entertainment and entertainment taverns, which are separated from the property tax under the Local Tax Act, to which the “area of entertainment and entertainment taverns,” etc., to which a dance hall installed

In addition, the Individual Consumption Tax Act and its Enforcement Decree clearly stipulate the subject of imposition of individual consumption tax. The subject of taxation stipulated in the above Act includes the places of business similar to entertainment taverns under the above Acts and subordinate statutes, such as guns for hunting, small automobiles, oil, etc.

Therefore, the instant place of business constitutes a taxable entertainment place stipulated in the Individual Consumption Tax Act, and thus, the imposition of the individual consumption tax, etc. on the instant place of business, including the individual consumption tax, is lawful.

C. Whether the notice of change in the income amount of this case and the disposition imposing value-added tax are legitimate

1) Facts of recognition

A) The instant workplace receives a certain amount of entrance fee from visitors (10,000 won a day, 15,000 won a week, 15,000 won a day), and require visitors to wear belts (hereinafter referred to as “entry belts”), and provides visitors, on the basis of, free of charge, alcoholic beverages of beer, etc., and the visitors purchase additional alcoholic beverages, etc. in addition to the basic alcoholic beverages. The visitors are waiting to enter the instant workplace from 21:00 to 21:00 a day, and then after or after 21:00 a day, the table table is opened, and many visitors have danced alcoholic beverages, dance, and hours without a table.

B) The price of alcoholic beverages sold at the instant plant is 10,000 won to KRW 3,00,000, and the price of euthanasia is 28,000 won to KRW 14,00. From June 27, 2013, a kisk for approving beverages within the workplace was installed.

C) There are 460 goods storage boxes installed at the instant place of business, and one time use fee is 2,000 won, and MM which managed the revenues of the instant place of business was 1 million won monthly average, and 15 million won in winter and winter.

라) 피고 AAAA국세청장은 세무조사 당일 원고 DDDDDD의 사무실에서 회계 및 관리업무를 담당하는 직원의 컴퓨터 하드디스크에서 확보한 서류와 엑셀파일, 월별 정산내역서, 키오스크 일별 매출내역, 일별 매출세부내역이 수록된 금전출납부, 입장띠 출고내역 등을 근거로 ㉠ 키오스크 설치 전 기간(2011. 10. 7〜2013. 6. 26.)의 입장수입 현금매출 누락금액 및 ㉡ 키오스크 설치 후 기간(2013. 6. 27〜2013. 10. 25.)의 입장수입 현금매출 누락금액을 산정하였는데, 그 내역은 아래와 같다.

E) The account books (data files) stating the details of the entrance belt release include the same as the following table example, and “explosive” means the number of entrance belts distributed from the headquarters to the store, and “explosive” means the quantity recovered from the ex-factory quantity to the headquarters, excluding the quantity of sales and refund/damage/damage. From around July 2011 to September 201, from around October 2011 to January 201, the gold, Saturdays (including the day preceding holidays; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Saturdays are written from October 201 to January 2012. The entry records contain the daily entry volume, quantity, and shipment quantity as shown below, and the amount of cash sales by the Plaintiffs’ entry fees by comparing the entry fees by 30 days and 25 days and 210 days and 30 days and 25 days and 20 days and 25 days and 30 days and 25 days and 25 days and 25 days and 20 days and 25 days and 25 days and 15 days and 25 days and 25 days of the amount of the Plaintiffs’scir sales.

F) The method of calculating the specific omitted amount is as follows. The Plaintiffs asserted that all the cash sales column on the daily settlement data prepared by the Plaintiffs for reporting during the taxable period prior to the installation of the KIKO include admission fees, liquor and food beverage sales, and cash sales on the daily cash sales column. Since each item of the revenue item is not separately indicated in the reward, the reported sales is deemed full admission income, and the amount of the return of admission income (the input card + cash) was calculated by deeming the reported sales as total admission income, and the difference between the estimated amount of admission income calculated by multiplying the number of admitted belts sales by the unit price was calculated as the omitted amount of the cash sales.

Since the amount of food beverage sales is confirmed to be kisk data in the taxable period after the installation of the kisk, the calculation was made by subtracting the reported amount of daily sales from the estimated revenue (the estimated amount of input revenue + the kisk sales). The calculation examples are as follows:

G) The Plaintiff AAA’s shares and the shares of Plaintiff HH in the instant workplace owned by KK are related to MF, which is a general manager of the business stores that use the trade name of “DDDD”, and MF was related to the opening and operation of the instant workplace from March 201 to March 201.

H) The shareholders of Plaintiff AAA and joint business operators of Plaintiff DDD DD DD DDR N have settled and distributed monthly profits in accordance with the ratio of shares, including the omitted amount of cash sales report. On October 31, 2012, if the OO, a shareholder of Plaintiff AAA, was converted into a joint business of an individual business operator, and excluded from the distribution of profits, the substantial investors who received profits distributed over the period before and after the conversion are only the same as the ratio of shares.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 10, Eul evidence No. 11-1 through 3, 5 through 6, part of Eul evidence No. 11-4, and the purport of whole pleadings

2) Determination on the assertion that there is no need to conduct an estimated investigation

Article 66(2) and (3) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "if a domestic corporation makes an error or omission in the details of its corporate tax base and amount of tax on income for each business year, the tax base and amount of tax shall be corrected on the basis of account books or other evidentiary documents, and if it is impossible to calculate the amount of income due to account books or other evidentiary documents due to the reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, it may be estimated, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." In addition, Article 105(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the method of calculating the amount of business revenue of another corporation meeting certain requirements shall be the method of calculating the amount of business revenue, the method of calculating the amount of production by applying the production rate, the method of applying the business efficiency which determines the relationship between the quantity or value of human and material facilities and the amount of sales, the method of calculating the amount of production by applying the production rate, the input rate of raw and secondary materials for each type of business and each region. Article 80(2) and (3) of the Income Tax

However, in this case, Defendant AAAA Commissioner of the National Tax Service confirms that there was omission in filing a return of the Plaintiffs’ tax base and the amount of cash sales through the instant tax investigation, and the fact that Defendant AAAAAA Commissioner calculated the omitted amount by multiplying the admission fees confirmed in the entry belt sales in the account book by the admission fees confirmed in the account book and the amount reported by the Plaintiffs is as seen earlier, and thus, such calculation method of tax base cannot be deemed as an estimated taxation. Accordingly, prior assertions

3) Determination as to the assertion that the calculation of the omitted income was erroneous

The Plaintiffs asserts that there is an error in the omission amount of revenue calculated by Defendant AAA Commissioner of the National Tax Service. However, the following circumstances revealed through the aforementioned facts, namely, ① sales volume in the account book on the release of admitted belts, ② sales volume on the date of receipt of entrance fees (by January 2012, 201), ② MM in charge of general revenue management, such as operation and accounting, stated that entry is included in the entry book, and that there is no account book verifying the details of the entry fee. However, considering that the investors of the instant business establishment made a settlement of profits including the omission amount of monthly cash delivery, and distributed each share, it is difficult to view that there was no other account book stating that there was an omission of the entry fee from 20 years to 30 years to 130 years to 20 years to 201 to 201 to 30 years to 201 to 201 to 201 to 30 years to 201 to 201 to 201 to 30.

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the notice of change in the income amount of this case and the assessment of value-added tax are legitimate based on the omitted amount calculated based on the details of the entry belt shipment, etc. as above.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.