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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 16,947,595 (including additional tax) and global income tax of KRW 10,722,150 (including additional tax) on July 1, 2015 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2015 is revoked.

(a) Conclusion of consulting services and collection of consulting fees;

1) The plaintiff was the representative director of BB (hereinafter referred to as the "EE") which is a corporation for the purpose of providing management consulting and management consulting services to the company, and was in office as the director of the company of this case (at present, the representative director is the Korea-Japan). The company of this case concluded an advisory service contract with DDR (hereinafter referred to as "DDR") on August 18, 2009, when the plaintiff is in office as the representative director of the company of this case, and 90 million won of value-added tax (hereinafter the same shall apply separately), EE (hereinafter referred to as "EE") on January 4, 2010, and advisory fees of 200 million won.

2) After that, the company of this case requested the change of the contractor on November 17, 2009 due to the occurrence of the insolvency and entered into a new advisory service agreement with the FFFFF (hereinafter referred to as the "FFF") on the same content as the former DD entered into with the FFFF (hereinafter referred to as the "FFF") on the ground that DD would have partially reduced the consulting fee of KRW 60 million, which would have been paid by the FFFFFF, on August 18, 2009. In addition, the company of this case entered into a separate advisory service agreement with the FFFFFFFF on November 18, 2009.

3) Meanwhile, the instant company received a total of KRW 120 million (including KRW 15 million paid by DNA) from the FFFF in 2009 with advisory fees for each of the above advisory services contracts (hereinafter referred to as “instant services contracts”) and KRW 20 million from EE in 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant income”).

(b) Criminal judgments and additional collection;

1) In relation to the instant service contract, the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office: (a) deemed the instant company to have received the above advisory fees as the advisory service; and (b) accordingly, the Plaintiff was indicted for the following facts on the grounds that the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes was established; and (c) on July 1, 2011, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the Plaintiff one-year imprisonment, additionally collected KRW 142,84,917 (Seoul Central District Court 2010 High Court 1486).

Summary of Facts charged

① The Plaintiff received KRW 66 million in total upon the request from KimGG to the effect that, with respect to the acceptance of the registration statement for the ICR’s capital increase, the Plaintiff received KRW 66 million in total upon the request from the KimGG to the effect that she would have her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

2) On November 11, 201, the Plaintiff filed an appeal, and the Seoul High Court sentenced the Plaintiff to one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service order, two hundred hours of community service order, and additional collection of KRW 142,84,917. On September 13, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above judgment and filed an appeal. On September 13, 2012, the Supreme Court reversed the part concerning additional collection among the judgment of the lower court on the ground that the Plaintiff received the aforementioned amount as value-added tax and paid all the said amount as value-added tax, and subsequently dismissed the Plaintiff’s remaining appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1606, Oct. 13, 2012).

3) Meanwhile, according to the instant judgment, the Plaintiff paid KRW 90,00,000,000, out of the above additional collection charges, KRW 70,996,170, and KRW 19,003,830, out of the above additional collection charges on October 7, 2013, pursuant to the instant judgment.

C. Disposition, etc. of this case

1) In the instant judgment, the Defendant deemed KRW 120 million received in the year 2009 as the Plaintiff’s other income, and issued a revised and notified global income tax of KRW 67,962,070 (including additional tax) for the year 2009, and received KRW 20 million in the year 2010 as the Plaintiff’s other income, deeming that it was the Plaintiff’s other income, and issued a revised and notified the global income tax of KRW 10,722,150 (including additional tax) for the year 2010 as the global income tax of KRW 10,72,150 for the year 2010.

2) On August 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On November 30, 2015, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that the Plaintiff imposed global income tax on the Plaintiff in 2009 and 2010, “The amount of each global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff shall be excluded from the tax base, and the tax base and tax amount shall be corrected, and the remainder of the appeal shall be dismissed.” Accordingly, the Defendant deducted the amount of KRW 90 million from the amount of the good offices received in 2009, excluding KRW 120 million from the amount of the good offices received in 2009, the amount of KRW 51,014,475 from the global income tax for 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the correction of each of the following dispositions”), and the Defendant corrected the amount of KRW 16,947,590 from the global income tax for 209 and KRW 10,272,150 from the global income tax for 2010.”

Year of death;

209 Reversion

201 Reversion of the year 2010

Revenue amount

Notice Tax Amount

Revenue amount

Notice Tax Amount

Original (Report)

316,783,33

278,200,000

The amount originally notified

436,783,33

67,962,070

298,200,000

10,722,150

After decision of the Tax Tribunal, reduction and correction

346,783,33

16,947,590

298,200,000

10,722,150

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 10 through 14, 18, 19, Eul evidence 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The instant income is unlawful on the sole ground that it is apparent that the Plaintiff was attributed to the instant company, not the Plaintiff, on the financial data, and that the Plaintiff was convicted of the charge of good offices and good offices, and that the instant disposition imposing a comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff without relation to whether it actually reverts to the Plaintiff or not.

② Since the Plaintiff’s possibility of losing economic benefits from the instant income is realized upon being sentenced to a surcharge judgment in a criminal case as to the instant income, the instant disposition is unlawful since the part relating to the remaining balance of the surcharge does not belong to the Plaintiff, from among the instant income, does not belong to the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the allegation No. 1

Unless there are special circumstances to deem it difficult to adopt a factual judgment of the above criminal judgment in the administrative litigation as it is final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du10424, Nov. 26, 199; 98Du10424, Nov. 26, 199; 201Du28240, May 24, 2012).

In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff received a total of 66 million won upon request from KimGG to the effect that, with respect to the acceptance of the registration statement on the ITRD prize, the plaintiff received a total of 66 million won upon request from the KimGG to the effect that she would properly pass the registration statement, and (2) in relation to the acceptance of the registration statement on the EEE EEE capital increase registration statement, the plaintiff received a total of 66 million won upon request from the Financial Supervisory Service, and received a total of 22 million won upon request from HaH to the Financial Supervisory Service, so that the registration statement can be accepted promptly so that the merger registration statement can take effect at a timely time, and (3) in relation to the acceptance of the EEE capital increase registration statement, the fact that the related criminal judgment became final and conclusive, as seen in the above, that the defendant received a total of 150 million won from HaH to the Financial Supervisory Service, 150 million won, and there is no violation of subparagraphs 15 through 17.

Therefore, the plaintiff, not the company of this case, received money and valuables for mediating the matters regarding the acceptance of the registration statement, which is the duties of officers and employees of the Financial Supervisory Service. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2) As to the argument

The purpose of the Criminal Act is to deprive a person of gains from a criminal act and prevent him/her from holding unjust profits. Therefore, if confiscation or collection of illegal income has been made, it constitutes realizing the possibility of loss of economic benefits inherent in the illegal income. Therefore, in such a case, since income has not been ultimately realized, it is reasonable to deem that the basis for calculating the tax base and tax amount has occurred after the establishment of the tax liability to be changed, and allow the person to claim reduction by proving the fact.In other words, even if the tax liability was established once the tax liability was met due to the fulfillment of the taxation requirement, even if the possibility of loss of economic benefits inherent in the illegal income such as confiscation or collection is realized after the occurrence of a subsequent trigger cause, and the tax liability established at the beginning is not realized due to the confirmation of non-performance of income, barring special circumstances, a taxpayer may escape from tax liability by filing a subsequent claim for correction as stipulated in Article 45-2 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Du165, supra.

On the other hand, the fact that the plaintiff paid KRW 90 million out of the additional collection amount of KRW 140 million in the judgment of this case which became final and conclusive is that the possibility of loss of economic benefits inherent in illegal income such as confiscation or additional collection is realized and it is confirmed that the income has not been realized. However, as the judgment imposing additional collection in relation to the portion of KRW 50 million which has not yet been executed yet, the above judgment is only likely to lose future economic benefits, and it is not feasible if the prescription of additional collection (Article 78 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Act is three years according to Article 78 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Act) is not realized. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the possibility of loss of economic benefits inherent in illegal income has been realized, and due to such a circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the taxpayer is out of the income tax liability due to the lack of initial arrangement.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.