2. On April 16, 2010, the head of the Namcheon District Tax Office indicated the attached disposition No. 1, which was made against the plaintiff on April 16, 2010

(a)in the tax assessment of global income tax, the more than 00 won out of (1), (2) and (3), and the more than 00 won out of the tax assessment of global income tax of paragraphs (1) and (4), and of paragraphs (1) through (4) and (5), the more than 00 won out of the tax assessment of global income of paragraphs (1) through (5), and the more than 1 (d) (1), (2) and (1) (1) and (1.e. (a) the tax assessment of each special consumption tax of paragraph (2), and the more than 00 won of individual consumption tax of January 2008 and 00 won of education tax of 00 won of education tax, respectively (excluding the portion of additional dues dismissed in paragraph (1) and the amount of 1.3).

3. On April 16, 2010, the part exceeding KRW 000 out of KRW 2-A. (b) and (c) of the imposition disposition of local income tax as listed in paragraph (2) shall be revoked (excluding the portion of the additional dues dismissed in paragraph (1)) in accordance with paragraph (2) when the head of Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City imposes the Plaintiff on April 16, 201 (excluding the portion of the additional dues dismissed in paragraph (1)).

4. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

5. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

As a matter of course, the issue of ex officio, and the additional dues and increased additional dues are naturally arising under the provisions of the law without the final procedure of the tax office upon the lapse of the tax payment period, and thus, the issue of whether to raise additional dues and increased additional dues are subject to appeal litigation cannot be considered as a disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da15482, Jun. 10, 2005). Of the instant lawsuit, each additional dues stated in the separate disposition among the instant lawsuit, and the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues are unlawful (see, e.g., allegation

2. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 26, 2005, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for 000 OOF, 000, and 000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) of the Incheon AAAOOO, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 6, 2006, and registered as a real estate rental business on March 2, 2006, and paid value-added tax on the BB from March 23, 2006 to November 12, 2008, and on the lease of the instant building to the GCC from November 6, 2008 to November 9, 2010.

B. As a result of the tax investigation on March 23, 2006 to December 31, 2009, when the plaintiff did not lease the building of this case, and when the tax return and payment of value-added tax was made to the person operating the EEE EE Entertainment in the building of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "EE EE EM clubs") as the actual operator of the building of this case, the head of the tax office has omitted the payment of 00 won cash sales and 00 won paid to thewazers of the NA clubs of this case, without any fact that the lease contract for the building of this case was concluded, submitted false data as if the plaintiff paid the building of this case, appropriated 00 won as the input tax amount, appropriated the income tax, global consumption tax and additional tax, etc., and the local income tax imposed on the plaintiff of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "tax imposition disposition of this case"), and the local income tax imposed on the plaintiff of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "tax imposition disposition of this case"), and the additional tax imposed on the local income tax of this case.

C. On July 19, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on the disposition of imposition of value-added tax, etc. of this case by the director of the tax office Namcheon District Tax Office, and the instant lawsuit was filed on July 29, 2010, but the said request for a trial was dismissed on March 28, 201, while the instant lawsuit was pending.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap 1, 4, 5, 7, 7, 8, 10, 1, 2, 14, 15, and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) From February 2008, the Plaintiff began to directly operate the instant age club, and thereafter, another HH who acquired the instant age club building and sales right from the Plaintiff operated the instant age club. As such, the Plaintiff should impose taxes, such as value-added tax, on the Plaintiff only for the period after February 2008, for which the Plaintiff received profits from directly operating the instant age club.

(2) The profit gained by the Plaintiff from operating the instant resort is unlawful in violation of the principle of fairness that the Plaintiff is obliged to fairly bear the tax burden in compliance with the tax burden imposed by the Defendants, since the Plaintiff was not able to complete the tax imposed by the Plaintiff.

(3) The persons who worked at the instant resort are not the employees employed by the Plaintiff, but directly attracting and managing the customers through their own business, and received from the customers.

The tax disposition of this case, which calculated the tax by including the plaintiff's income, is illegal even to the portion paid to water, even though a certain ratio of the price was brought to their own share.

(4) Since from February 2008, the Plaintiff was in direct operation of the instant age club and engaged in the same business, the Plaintiff’s share in the damaged club (17% prior to May 14, 2008, and 27% thereafter) from the Plaintiff’s income should be deducted from the tax base.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The plaintiff's assertion that he did not operate the instant age club before February 2008.

(A) The plaintiff entered into a contract between Gap's 16, 17, and 18, and Eul's 6, and 7 (including household numbers), and the witness half-F, and the testimony of the YoungG on December 26, 2005 to transfer the building of this case at issue on February 6, 2006, and the plaintiff entered into a contract between South and South Hah on January 18, 2006 to transfer the age club building and business right to South Hah to 00 won (on January 23, 2008, the payment date), and the fact that the plaintiff transferred the right to operate the above age club to South Hah on February 20, 2006, and the plaintiff transferred the right to operate the above age club at issue on February 20, 2006, and the fact that the payment date for the transfer price has passed directly since 208.

According to the above facts, from February 20, 206 to January 23, 2008, HH, who is not the Plaintiff, is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff actually operated the instant age club, and the part corresponding to the above period among the dispositions of this case premised on the Plaintiff’s operation of the instant age club shall be revoked by unlawful means without any need to examine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion. In addition, in paragraphs (2) and (3), and (4), the part pertaining to each disposition of this case, which the Plaintiff operated the instant age club, after January 24, 2008, shall be determined on the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

(B) The legitimate notified tax amount calculated by deducting the tax amount imposed on the Plaintiff from January 1, 2008 to January 23, 2008 as the taxable period shall be KRW 000 in the imposition of global income tax for 2008, KRW 000 in the imposition of global income tax for 1 year 2008, and KRW 000 in the imposition of global consumption tax for 1 year 2008, KRW 000 in the imposition of individual consumption tax for 000 in January 200, and KRW 000 in the imposition of education tax for 00 in the imposition of KRW 00 in the education tax, and KRW 00 in the education tax for 200 and KRW 000 in the local income tax for 208. Therefore, each of the imposition of tax for 2006 and KRW 200 in the imposition of tax for 208 shall be revoked.

(2) The assertion that it goes against the principle of fair taxation.

In full view of the above evidence, Eul evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2, the defendants can recognize the facts that the defendants issued each disposition of this case in accordance with the taxation requirements, taxation standard and tax rate prescribed by the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Value-Added Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, and the plaintiff's assertion that each disposition of this case was contrary to the principle of fair taxation. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) Claim for partial deductions paid to waitus

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and evidence evidence Nos. 6-1 and 3, the entire purport of the argument is as follows: (a) customers of the instant age club did not distinguish alcoholic beverages from service charges by credit, cash, etc., and at the same time paid to the employer of the instant age club in a lump sum without distinguishing them; and (b)we have paid the Plaintiff the remainder after deducting their share from their customers being paid, not by being paid separate fixed wages from the Plaintiff; and (c)we have paid a certain amount of security deposit to the Plaintiff in preparation for cases where the Plaintiff did not receive or pay the payment from their respective customers, and the customers of the instant age club paid a certain amount of security deposit to the Plaintiff. In full view of the circumstances such as the fact that the instant age club was operated in a structure where a part of the price received under the internal agreement between the Plaintiff and B, which is the business owner, was operated, the Plaintiff’s income and the Plaintiff’s portion cannot be seen as being distributed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s allegation that part of the price was not allocated from the Plaintiff’s tax base (see 2006.

(4) Claim of partial deduction of partner's share

갑 제6호증의 기재만으로는 원고가 손상봉과 통업약정을 하여 손QQ에게 이 사건 나이트클럽 운영 수익을 분배하였음을 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으며 오히려 을 제6호증의 5， 을 제13호증의 2의 각 기재에 의하면 손QQ이 원고에게 사업자금 명목으로 돈을 대여하고 그 담보로 동업계약서를 작성한 사실이 인정 되므로， 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of the imposition of additional dues and increased additional dues among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful, and the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the additional disposition against the defendants in this case is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.