Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap34235 ( October 14, 2010)

Seocho 209west 1838 (2009.03)

The legitimacy of the assertion that the processing sales amount corresponding to the processing purchase amount should be reduced

In the case of a report on sales, it is reasonable to deem that such sales actually existed as long as a taxpayer voluntarily reported on such sales. Even if there was no actual sales, the part reported by a taxpayer as the sales is finalized (in the case of an excessive return of sales tax, etc., a taxpayer shall take the procedure of a request for reduction or correction, etc.).

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

44 44 44 44 44 45 44 444 64 44

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant appears to be a clerical error in writing on February 9, 2009 ( February 10, 2009) against the plaintiff.

For the second term portion of value-added tax in 2001, value-added tax of 8,261,860 won, value-added tax of 1 year 202, value-added tax of 7,798,150 won, value-added tax of 2 year 2002, value-added tax of 8,182,500 won, value-added tax of 1 year 203, value-added tax of 6,449,170 won, value-added tax of 2 year 203, value-added tax of 6,367,00 won, value-added tax of 6,125,590 won, value-added tax of 2 year 204, value-added tax of 6,068,220 won, value-added tax of 1 year 205, value-added tax of 5,252,450 won, value-added tax of 2 year 2005,3686 won for 208

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court’s decision to add the following Paragraph (2) is the same as the entry of the reasoning of the judgment in the first instance court; and (b) thus, it refers to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Judgment added by this Court

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant taxation disposition was procedurally made in accordance with unlawful procedures, since the Defendant issued a revised tax accountant’s office and the shopping mall’s business association to deliver a revised tax report to a arbitrarily selected merchant, thereby preventing the Plaintiff from becoming aware of the method of the revised tax return.

Therefore, considering the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 15 and 16, the defendant prepared a revised report for each merchant to encourage the merchants belonging to the AA market to submit a revised report for value-added tax, around June 2007, and delivered it to the president of the AAA market or the managing director at a meeting place with the president of the AA market. Despite the above revised report, the defendant presented an attitude that the merchants of the AA market raise collective objection or go against the revised report for the reasons that the revised report sent it to the AAA market merchant again by regular mail, and the plaintiff's children did not actually receive the revised report for each of the above reasons that the revised report was delivered to the 3rd merchants of the AA market through the revised report and the revised report for each of the above reasons. In light of the above, the defendant's explanation that the revised report did not affect the plaintiff's duty to submit it to the 38th merchants of the AA market or the revised report for each of the above reasons.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant taxation, which was revised on the basis of the value-added tax for 11 taxable periods, is excessive, and is contrary to the equity with other merchants, is illegal, even though the Plaintiff, etc. was trusted that the subject of the revised tax was limited to the three taxable periods of 1, 05, 2, 06, and 11.

However, the above guide (No. 16 No. 16) explicitly announced merchants whose cross-transaction of tax invoice data was confirmed to correct a revised return on their own for the three taxable periods, and provided a revised return on their own, and where the revised return is not filed or an unfair reduced return is filed, the whole period of the data generation can be reviewed. Therefore, in light of the above guide, regardless of whether the revised return is filed or not, the plaintiff's argument that the correction disposition is made within the above three taxable periods was formed or that it was caused against the equity of taxation on the premise of the trust is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and it shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.