Attached Table 2 from 2006 to 2009

purchase of actual raw materials, etc. from DD, EE Engineering, including re-purchase

It was determined that the processing purchase of 00,000,000 won was included in excess of one amount.

The Director of the Central Regional Tax Office at the time shall report export clearance related to the tax invoice and the seller issued by the seller.

Part of the money deposited in the name of the processing sales office is identified, and only part of the money is used by the plaintiff.

A tax invoice out of the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s account after confirming that the amount was deposited by the employee; and

The remainder, other than the amount on which the export clearance declaration exists, is the processing sale price of this case

A. As to the processed purchase, the Plaintiff’s account was withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s account and deposited into the purchaser’s account

Any transaction in which a tax invoice is actually issued, other than the transaction in which the tax invoice is actually issued, for processing.

I understood that this constitutes a case.

The director of the Central Regional Tax Office may deem that the plaintiff was recovered from the above processing purchase price.

0,000,000,000 won (0 billion won recovered from DD in 2, 2007) + EE engineering

The sum recovered on December 5, 2007 KRW 660 million + the sum recovered on June 26, 2008 and July 31, 2008

0,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the issue amount of this case") as "other", and the remaining 00,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the issue amount of this case").

(2) The court shall have jurisdiction to dispose of the property as a "contribution to thisA", which was the representative director of the plaintiff at the time.

The head of the tax office notifies the defendant who is the head of the tax office of taxation data, and thisA to the △△ branch office.

The accusation was filed.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) on July 16, 2012, the key amount of the instant case KRW 00,000,000.

In the event that the amount was leaked as a non-deductible loss, but the ownership is unclear;

Of the processed purchase price, the amount corresponding to 0,000,000,000 won for the year 2006, and the amount corresponding to 2007

00,000,000,000 won for the year 2008,00,000,000 for the year 2008, and 0,000,000 for the year 2009

After disposing of the AA as a prize for recognition, the Plaintiff on the same day as shown in attached Table 1.

The notice of change in the amount of income resulting from the disposition of income (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") was made.

D. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 12, 2012.

The Tax Tribunal held on November 26, 2014 that the issue amount of this case was in criminal proceedings against this Tribunal.

The portion exceeding 0,000,000,000 won which is deemed to have been embezzled by thisA shall in fact be

re-audit through the Plaintiff’s corporate account, account, etc., and the decision

A decision was made to correct the notice of change in the amount of income according to the division(hereinafter referred to as "the re-investigation of this case").

'decision'.

(e)The commissioner of a regional tax office shall make the key amount of this case, such as the initial decision on November 26, 2014, to the A.

decision to dispose of property as bonus to the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff of the result, and the re-determination

On February 4, 2015, the notice of the results of investigation reached the Plaintiff.

2. Determination on the part of the instant lawsuit claiming a change in the results of a tax investigation

The reasons for this Court to be stated in this part of the judgment of the first instance and the corresponding part of the reasons therefor.

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the instant disposition is unlawful, and thus ought to be revoked.

1) Despite the decision of the Tax Tribunal on the re-investigation of this case, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is without merit

The maintenance goes against the binding force of the decision of the Tax Tribunal.

2) The former representative director, EA of the Plaintiff, who makes a false representation in sales in order to support the share price.

In the process, the processing purchase was also included. The issue amount appropriated as the processing purchase exceeds the key amount of this case.

(2) Withdrawal from the Plaintiff’s account in response to the processing purchase, there is a processing sale of the amount to be made.

amount to be deposited in the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the customer in order to pretend the sale.

Therefore, the key issue amount of the instant case cannot be deemed to have been leaked out of the private company. Accordingly, the processing purchase price is a law.

Pursuant to Article 106(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Tax-Related Act, the amount included in the gross income shall not be disclosed outside the company.

In the case of not being treated as "in the case of disposal of property", it must be treated as "in the case of disposal of property", and it shall be recognized as such.

No disposition of income can be made.

B. Determination on the first argument

The reasons for this Court to be stated in this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Judgment on the second argument

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act shall apply to corporate tax from income for each business year under the provisions of Article 60.

the corporate tax base under the provisions of Article 66 or 69.

The amount included in the calculation of earnings in the decision or revision shall be bonus, dividend and other expenses to the person to whom it belongs.

It provides that "a disposition shall be taken as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as outflow from the company and internal reservation."

Pursuant to the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (as for the business year 2006, the Presidential Decree of February 28, 2007)

Matters prior to the amendment by Act No. 19891, and for the business year 2007, Presidential Decree No. 22, Feb. 22, 2008

(2) Articles before amendment by Presidential Decree No. 20619, and for business year 2008, by Presidential Decree No. 2130, Feb. 4, 2009

(2) Articles before amendment by Act No. 21302, and for the business year 2009, Presidential Decree No. 2013, Feb. 2, 2012

Article 106 (1) 1 (b) of the Act (amended by Act No. 23589) provides that the amount included in gross income shall lapse.

In cases where it is obvious that the outflow has been done in addition to others, if the person to whom it belongs is an executive officer or employee,

shall be disposed of as bonus for the Corporation, but if it is unclear, it shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative.

(1) The Act provides that the Corporation shall

On the other hand, the burden of proof on the facts of taxation requirement in the tax revocation lawsuit is imposed on the tax authority.

Therefore, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10343, Jan. 13, 2005). The tax authority’s corporate tax office’s inclusion in deductible expenses.

If it is intended to dispose of income as non-deductible expenses on the grounds that such loss is processing expenses, the loss shall be processed.

It shall prove the fact that expenses are expenses, and it shall not be deemed that the processing expenses are not leaked to others.

Special circumstances in which the assertion is made ought to be attested by the legal entity that asserts such circumstances (Supreme Court Decision 209Da1549, Sept. 27,

2010Du14329, see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du14329.

In light of the above legal principles, the issue amount of this case is appropriated as a processing purchase.

Inasmuch as there is no dispute between the parties, the above amount is leaked to others, barring special circumstances.

special circumstances to deem that the issue amount of the instant case was not leaked out of the private company are:

The plaintiff shall prove this.

(ii) the facts of recognition

A) The Plaintiff’s total share swap by thisA, the largest shareholder of the Plaintiff, was the KOSDAQ market.

corporation listed in the EE (hereinafter referred to as “EE”) becomes a subsidiary of 100% of the EE (hereinafter referred to as “EE”), and is KOSDAQ.

It was listed on the Chapter bypass.

B) ThisA, at the time of the Plaintiff’s representative director, was the EE’s share price through the most recent transaction.

processing and sale to the plaintiff and the corresponding processing and purchase for the purpose of supporting the plaintiff.

The term of this study was determined as follows.

C) For this purpose, thisA shall, for processing sale, be BB electronic,CC Construction, F Construction, EE-Repanty.

Account books as if the product was sold or the service was provided to the processing sales office (hereinafter referred to as the "processing sales office").

For the purpose of appropriating false sales and creating a consistent financial evidence, thisA or the plaintiff

The employees shall record the name of the remitter to the remittance agent as the above processing sales office and include the name of the remitter in the account book.

The same amount as the sales amount was deposited into the Plaintiff’s account. As to the processing purchase, the actual amount was paid.

The processing purchase amount in excess of the purchase amount shall be included in the account books and equivalent to the purchase amount in the account books.

The difference between the money provided by the purchaser and the actual purchase amount after offering money to the purchaser;

consistent with the processing purchase by re-returning the amount of the corresponding processing purchase;

The melting evidence was made.

(d) upon the complaint of the director of a regional tax office, an investigation of thisA has been conducted, and thisA has been conducted;

The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies

△△△ branch of the district court was indicted under 2012 Gohap142 due to a violation of the rate of interest (hereinafter the above case)

“Related criminal cases”. ThisA on December 27, 2013, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years and a fine not exceeding 00 years in the above court.

The court of appeal (Seoul High Court 2014No211) declared guilty of a KRW 00 million and on July 17, 2014

On January 15, 2015, the appeal was dismissed after the sentence of 7 years of imprisonment and 0 billion won of fine.

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Do9691, hereinafter referred to as "related criminal judgments").

The criminal facts of the relevant criminal judgment are the facts of the crime committed by 'A' from May 28, 2007 to November 23, 2010.

up to 0 billion won of the Plaintiff’s funds were embezzled, and as the representative director of the EE, the amount of the Plaintiff’s funds was 0 billion won or more.

From 208 to 2010, processing transaction has been included and the legal interest of the plaintiff who is a subsidiary has been over the legal interest of the subsidiary.

A false financial statement of sales and net income shall be prepared by appropriating such statement.

B. The public notice was made by means of false disclosure and related sales to EE and the plaintiff

Investors to purchase EE stocks in such a way that they can be seen as a superior company through a window dressing accounting;

by deception and by inducing funds managers, etc. to purchase EE shares; and

It is the content that " was obtained".

E) In the relevant criminal judgment, thisA’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

(Embezzlement) From August 7, 2007 to September 15, 2009, as shown in Appendix 3-2, 10 posts from around August 7, 2007 to around September 15, 2009.

of the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 000,000,000 for the following reasons:

Innocence was pronounced.

[Ground of Recognition] Evidence No. 4-1 to 3, Evidence No. 5-1 to 3, Gap, 6, 7

Each entry of evidence 9, 30 and the purport of the whole pleadings

3) Determination

A) The amount of innocence in the relevant criminal judgment

According to the above, the amount withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s account under the pretext of false purchase price.

Of them, the amount to be found innocent in the relevant criminal judgment (the amount stated in the column "amount of deduction" in the above table) shall be the plaintiff.

any third party, other than those in use, used or used for the repayment of any debt to the creditor;

the bonus disposal amount of thisA, all of which are confirmed, must be excluded from the bonus disposal amount of thisA.

B) As to other payments for DDR

(1) Facts of recognition

① The operator KimGG of DD, who was the Plaintiff’s purchasing office in the course of the prosecution investigation of the relevant criminal case

1.3.0,000,000 won in total from the Plaintiff’s account

the actual transaction price of KRW 0 billion, except for the actual transaction price of KRW 0 billion, the remainder of KRW 0000,000 shall be withdrawn as a check.

Seeking revocation of the portion exceeding the above legitimate income amount in the disposition of notice of change in income amount

The part is justified, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no reason.

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the notice of change in income amount and the claim for cancellation thereof are

Since it is improper to accept part of the defendant's appeal, it is so ordered as per Disposition by the first instance court decision.

change.

Since the part concerning the remaining claims in the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as to this conclusion, the plaintiff's conclusion is justified.

The appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.

A. On July 16, 2012, the part that exceeds the description in the “political income” column in the separate sheet No. 1 as stated by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is revoked.

B. The plaintiff's remaining income change notification revocation claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant's issuance of a notice of change in the amount of income stated in attached Form 1, which was issued against the plaintiff on July 16, 2012

2. The Defendant’s processed sales of the notice of the results of the tax investigation conducted against the Plaintiff on July 16, 2012

The parts of KRW 00,000,000,000 shall be modified to KRW 00,000,000.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant against the plaintiff on July 16, 2012 is limited to that against the plaintiff.

The portion of processed sales of KRW 00,000,000,000 in the notice of tax investigation results changed to KRW 00,000,000 in the notice of tax investigation

(c)

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part

The dismissal is dismissed.

A. On January 24, 1998, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling automobile exhaust gas reduction devices, and thisA served as the representative director from March 28, 2001 to July 13, 201.

B. The director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China shall conduct a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff (3) from January 2006 to December 2008, 2008) and as a result, he shall include the Plaintiff’s processed sales of KRW 00,000,000 in total, even though the Plaintiff did not have any actual sales or actual sales with respect to B electronic andCC construction from 2005 to 2008 (hereinafter the above 00,000,000 won).

As a result of tracing the funds for KRW 00,000,000,000 (specific data related to the details of checks)

It was found that this court did not submit evidence as evidence again to the plaintiff.

The defendant considered only KRW 0 billion to have been recovered from the plaintiff, and disposed of excessive income.

② On June 29, 2007, the Plaintiff’s bank account opened with KRW 00 billion deposited from the Plaintiff’s bank account and opened with D’s account.

Deposit was made, and KRW 000,000,000 as a check from the account of DD was withdrawn. The plaintiff was the plaintiff.

A bank holding a duplicate of the check, which is the Plaintiff’s principal bank on July 2, 2007.

The payment was proposed at the △△ branch office.

③ On June 23, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) on June 23, 2008, as a processing purchase price of DD’s account, KRW 0 billion.

on June 25, 2008, thisA received 0 billion won from DD as a check before it and returned to it.

Among them, 0 billion won was paid to Kim H who lent the Plaintiff’s operational fund.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, 15-1, 2, and 16-1, 10-2, and 16

1, 2, and evidence Nos. 21-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(2) An amount of money to be recovered;

① According to the above facts, the Plaintiff was paid to DD as a processing purchase price.

The amount of KRW 0 billion from the returned money has already been paid to the Plaintiff at the investigation stage with respect to embezzlement of thisA.

It was confirmed that it was returned, and KRW 0 billion which was returned out of the amount of remittance to DDR dated June 23, 2008

As a result, it was confirmed at the trial stage that the plaintiff was paid to the creditor.

A total of 0 billion won cannot be deemed to have been out of the company.

Nevertheless, the defendant has been discharged from the country in excess of 0 billion won out of the remittance amount to D.

Inasmuch as the instant disposition was deemed to have been taken, 2.5 billion won in addition to the AA

It should be excluded from bonus disposal amount.

② Furthermore, according to the facts of the above recognition, the Plaintiff was individually examined, and the Plaintiff was on June 29, 2007.

It is possible to receive a return of KRW 00 million out of the amount of remittance.

③ In addition, DDR shall be deposited in a cashier’s check on June 23, 2008 and shall be deposited in a bill of lading of KRW 0 billion from June 23, 2008.

all of them have been returned by thisA, and thisA has been a creditor of the loan to the Plaintiff, KimG, the creditor of the loan.

Since it was used by the method of payment, the above KRW 0 billion was recovered to the Plaintiff.

section 1.

On the other hand, on June 30, 2008, the remaining KRW 800 million among the above KRW 1.8 billion is processed and sold by EE again on June 30, 2008.

The fact that it is withdrawn from the account of the plaintiff under the pretext of payment is a dispute between the parties.

There is no (the plaintiff) (the above 0 billion won through a preparatory document dated May 8, 2008) EERepan on June 30, 2008.

The plaintiff argued that it was recovered in the manner of deposit into the plaintiff's account as a processing sales price;

The defendant's assertion in the plaintiff's preparatory brief dated May 8, 2008 at the date for preparatory pleading two times in this court

The above 0 billion won stated that the plaintiff did not dispute the facts recovered to the plaintiff, but this court changed 6 times.

The confession was revoked on the date of theory. According to Gap evidence No. 4-1, the transmission on June 23, 2008

Recognition of the fact that an amount of KRW 0 billion has been recovered by means of making it paid to the creditor of the plaintiff

As such, the part of the Defendant’s confession amounting to KRW 0 billion is different from the fact and is contrary to the truth.

of the remainder KRW 00,000,000

there is no evidence that it is against the office and is caused by mistake, and that there is no evidence that it is caused by the foregoing paragraph (1) above;

(2) The amount of KRW 000,000,000 as described in paragraph (3) shall be 0 billion if the amount described in paragraph (3) is added to KRW 0 billion.

The amount of recovery revealed in the course of the investigation and public trial of criminal cases shall be KRW 0 billion.

(3) An amount which has not been recovered

① On June 20, 2008, the Plaintiff paid 0 billion won as the processing purchase price to St. on June 20, 2008

It argues that 00 million won was returned out of 00 billion won.

According to the statements in Gap evidence 15-1 and 2, the plaintiff is the account of DD on June 20, 2008.

The fact that the plaintiff remitted 1 billion won as the processing purchase price, and immediately following the fact that the plaintiff remitted 1 billion won as the processing purchase price, and June 23, 2008.

It is recognized that a copy of the issued check is in possession of KRW 00,000,000.

The above fact alone recognizes that the check was actually deposited into the Plaintiff’s account.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

② Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s amount of KRW 0 billion out of the amount paid for processing and purchase of DD.

Therefore, the total amount of KRW 000 million should be excluded from the income disposal amount of this case.

According to the above, DDA, etc., KRW 000,000,000,000 shall be asserted as follows.

The fact that the check was returned is recognized, but the sum of the above 0 billion won recognized exceeds the sum of the above 0.0 billion won;

Evidence proving that all remaining amounts were recovered from the Plaintiff, such as deposits into the Plaintiff’s account;

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

In the relevant criminal judgment from among the amounts paid as processing or purchase price to DD

In addition to the amount sentenced to not guilty, KRW 000,000,000 out of the amount paid on June 29, 2007, and June 2008.

20.The 00 billion won out of the amount of remittance should be additionally excluded from the amount of outflow.

(C) As to the amount payable for KK's solution:

(1) An amount of money to be recovered;

(1) The withdrawn amount of December 1, 2006 KRW 0 billion.

Gap evidence 18-1 through 3, Gap evidence 34-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

According to Section B, from the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff, the name of the Plaintiff in the future of KK Dogion on December 1, 2006

US$ 0,000,000 was immediately deposited as the processing purchase price, and USD 0,000 ($ 1 per US).

931 won and deposited into the △△ account in the name of the plaintiff 14:02 on the same day.

Therefore, the above 0 billion won was fully recovered from the Plaintiff.

(2) 0 billion won out of the withdrawn amount of May 28, 2007 KRW 0 billion.

Evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 11-1, and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

According to the review, on May 28, 2007, 0 billion won from the account of △△ Bank in the name of the plaintiff on May 28, 2007 to KK Solar.

On May 29, 2007, the next day of May 29, 2007, the fact that a check has been withdrawn under the pretext of a processing purchase price.

In the United Nations, the said money was exchanged into United Nations 000,000,000, and the said money was processed and sold, EERepanty.

It can be recognized that a deposit holder has been deposited into the foreign currency account under the name of the plaintiff.

If so, 0 billion won out of the above 0 billion won was recovered to the plaintiff.

3. 0 billion won out of the withdrawn amount of October 24, 2007 KRW 0 billion.

Evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 13-1, and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

According to the fact that on October 24, 2007, from the account of △△ Bank under the Plaintiff’s name, KRW 0 billion was deposited in the check;

On October 24, 2007, 2000 billion won following the following day, the Plaintiff as the processing sales price for theCC Construction.

the account in the name of the above company bank. Therefore, it can be recognized that the above bank account has been deposited in the above bank account.

The Board shall be recovered to the Plaintiff.

(2) Part not to be recovered (as of August 7, 2007, relating to KRW 000,000,000,000,000)

Part which exceeds KRW 000,000,000 judged not guilty in a criminal judgment)

① Plaintiff’s assertion

On August 7, 2007, from the Plaintiff’s account of △△ Bank to the name of the processing purchase price for the KK Operation in the Plaintiff’s account.

The withdrawn KRW 000,000,000,000 shall be the processed sale price forCC Construction on June 29, 2007 by thisA.

The above money shall be KRW 2,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

It is not an outflow.

(2) Judgment

According to Gap evidence No. 5-2, the plaintiff's above △△ Bank in the name ofCC Construction on June 29, 2007

It is recognized that the deposit of KRW 0 billion has been made with the processed sales amount by account.

However, as seen next, [paragraph (2) of (e)] / [2] the processing purchase from the Plaintiff’s account

Processing purchase solely on the ground that the processing sales amount has been deposited in the above account before the payment was made;

No withdrawal in the name of the price shall be deemed to be all out of the company (in the related criminal judgment, the amount of withdrawal in the name of the price

of KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000 of the above withdrawal, shall be used individually by thisA to KimD, etc.

paid in 600 million won and embezzled total of KRW 000,000,000 by using the repayment of personal loans.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(3) Sub-decisions

The relevant criminal judgment among the money paid by the Plaintiff to KK Solar as a processing purchase price;

the withdrawal on December 1, 2006, the withdrawal on May 28, 2007, in the amount of KRW 0 billion, which was judged not guilty, as of December 1, 2006.

Of the amount, KRW 0 billion out of the amount, KRW 0 billion out of the amount withdrawn on October 24, 2007, was recovered by the plaintiff.

Therefore, within the scope of the amount of income disposal of this case, each of the above amounts shall be the income amount.

shall be subject to deduction (as described above) as the processing purchase price for KK in 2007.

The amount of income disposed of is KRW 0,000,000,000, which is the amount determined as not guilty in the relevant criminal judgment 00 billion.

The above disposal of income in the aggregate of KRW 00,000,000 and the sum of the amounts recognized to have been recovered to the Plaintiff.

Since it exceeds the amount claimed by the Plaintiff, the amount of KRW 000,000,000 as of August 7, 2007, which is claimed by the Plaintiff, shall be the amount to be withdrawn.

KK in 2007, regardless of whether the Plaintiff was recovered in full;

The amount of the processed purchase price for the solution shall be excluded from the proceeds of the outflow.

D) As to the amount paid for EE engineering

(1) Facts of recognition

from the Plaintiff’s △ Bank Account to the EE Engineering Deposit Account on three occasions as follows:

The processing purchase price was paid.

As above, each of the above amounts deposited into the account of the purchaser shall be deposited on the date of such deposit as specified below:

Around that time, the check was withdrawn from the account of the purchaser, and the check was withdrawn from the investigative agency.

The Plaintiff was confirmed to have recovered all. The Plaintiff’s reproduction of a part of his/her checks was confirmed.

A check which was issued on December 4, 2007, excluding KRW 300,000,000.

Since there is no possibility that they were withdrawn, they were made a payment proposal to △△ Bank, the principal bank of the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each evidence set forth above, evidence Nos. 12-1 through 5, evidence No. 17-1 through 5, and No. 17

Each entry of evidence 26 and the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Determination

According to the above facts, the name of the processing purchase price for EE Engineering in 2007.

of the total amount deposited 0,00,000,000,000, the amount deposited by EE Engineering has been deposited as a check.

The plaintiff holds a copy, and some of them have been deposited into the plaintiff's account;

0 billion won, which is the amount recognized by the plaintiff in an investigation agency of related criminal cases as recovered by the plaintiff;

the plaintiff. The defendant shall be deemed to have been recovered by the plaintiff. However, as seen earlier, the defendant shall be deemed to have been so recovered.

KRW 000,000,000 shall be deemed to have already been recovered by the Plaintiff from the amount of disposition in this case.

As such, the amount to be deducted from the disposition amount of this case out of the amount to be recovered is KRW 0 billion.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s withdrawal on June 25, 2008 for EE Engineering is KRW 000,000,000.

The plaintiff was additionally recovered to KRW 00,000,000 on July 22, 2008, and KRW 000,000,000,000 from Won.

I argue that this is a matter of interest.

(1) Evidence No. 31, Evidence No. 32, Evidence No. 33-1, Evidence No. 1, 2, and 33

According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s account, the Plaintiff’s account on June 24, 2008.

The EE Engineering has been released by KRW 000,000,000 as the processing purchase price for the EE Engineering, and EEN

Singing issued 100 million won 100 million won check and returned it to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff

On June 26, 2008, the fact that the above money deposited into the Plaintiff’s foreign currency account by exchanging it into the United Nations, and the Plaintiff’s account.

on July 22, 2008,000,000 won under the name of processing purchase price for EE Engineering

EE Engineering was withdrawn, and EE Engineering was deposited on July 29, 2008, KRW 000 billion out of the money deposited as above.

The plaintiff withdrawn the Won as a check and returned it to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff refunded the above money on July 31, 2008 to United Nations.

It can be recognized that the deposit was made to the foreign currency account of the plaintiff.

However, at the time of notification of the change in the income amount of this case, the defendant KRW 000 million on June 26, 2008 (the plaintiff)

The amount of KRW 00 million is more than the claimed amount, and 000 billion won on July 31, 2008, all of which are 00 billion won on July 31, 2008

The facts that the plaintiff was recovered and excluded from the amount of the disposition in this case are stated above.

D. Therefore, the above amount should not be deducted from the amount of the instant disposition in duplicate.

Furthermore, on July 22, 2008, the Plaintiff paid to EE Engineering as a processing purchase price.

With respect to whether KRW 000,000,000 has been recovered to the Plaintiff, the aforementioned evidence alone is sufficient

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

E) As to other amounts paid under the pretext of the payment of the processing purchase price

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Deposits of the proceeds of processing sales and the withdrawal of the proceeds of processing sales shall be made in a series of funds related to each other.

as a process, the deposit in the name of the processing sale price is greater than the deposit in the name of the processing purchase price.

Ro. It can be said that all the money withdrawn under the name of the processing purchase price has been recovered.

2. The Plaintiff’s account in the name of processing and sales office directly or through the Plaintiff’s employees.

In the absence of explicit data on its source from the deposited money, the plaintiff otherwise processed

Unless there is a clear plan to procure the sales price, it shall be deemed that the sales price has been appropriated from the processing purchase price.

Therefore, all issues of this case were recovered.

(2) Determination

Each of the evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 23-1 and 2

In other words, thisA shall not apply to the members of the money deposited in the Plaintiff’s account as the proceeds of processing sales.

(a) is owned by individual investors, such as KimG, and financial institutions such as TT securities and △ Bank;

to be loaned with the EE shares as security or by selling them to the creditors.

capital, however, includes funds held by the related companies, such as EE;

As long as money was deposited into the Plaintiff’s account regardless of money, the ownership of the money belongs to the Plaintiff.

It is necessary to determine the amount deposited with the individual funds of thisA among the above funds, and the amount deposited with the individual funds of thisA.

Since there is no data, the amount of claims against the plaintiff of thisA can not be determined, and thisA cannot be determined.

Only that it is deemed that there was an intention to receive a repayment of the amount of cash at the time of withdrawal as a processing purchase price.

there is no material that there is no material for the crime of embezzlement based on the AA's anti-refluence in the relevant criminal judgment

The non-existence argument was rejected) while the money deposited into the Plaintiff’s account, the money in the name of the processing sales price.

Besides, circumstances such as the fact that money due to corporate activities, such as actual sales, is included in the amount of money

In light of the above, the sum deposited in the Plaintiff’s account as the processing sales price is the processing purchase name.

for the sole reason that the amount deposited exceeds the total amount deposited under this section, all such amount withdrawn as the processing purchase price

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit. The plaintiff's assertion is also without merit.

D. Sub-committee

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition, the tax authority's disposition is subject to a trial

Since the tax base and tax amount notified are objectively existing, whether such tax base and tax amount are objectively existing

If the tax base and tax amount recognized by a disposition are justifiable, the disposition of imposition shall be lawful.

On the contrary, the tax base and tax amount recognized by the disposition of imposition are reasonable and reasonable.

If taxes are excessive, the imposition disposition exceeds the legitimate tax base and tax amount.

Inasmuch as it is illegal only within the scope of this Act, the revocation must be made (Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6504 delivered on March 28, 1989).

The legitimate income amount of the disposition of this case shall accrue from the amount of 2006,000,000,000 won, and shall accrue from the amount of 2007.

Amount of 0,000,000,000 won from the amount of 2008 to the amount of 0,000,000,0000 won and that of 2009

The calculation shall be made by deducting 0,000,000 won respectively.

The legitimate income amount of the notice of change in the income amount calculated accordingly shall be listed in attached Form 1.

“Justifiable Income Amount” is as indicated in the “Justifiable Income Amount.” Therefore, each of the aforementioned legitimate income amount during the instant disposition.

The exceeding part should be revoked because it is illegal.

3. Conclusion

In the lawsuit of this case, the part seeking a change of notice of tax investigation results is unlawful and thus dismissed.