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

A. The Plaintiff (the Plaintiff was absorbing the construction of Taesung, Inc., Ltd. on October 11, 2004; hereinafter the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff”) is a company that operates civil engineering, construction packing, water supply and sewerage equipment sanitation, and heating and cooling equipment construction without distinguishing the period before and after the merger.

B. In reporting and paying corporate tax for the business year of 200 or 2002, the Plaintiff applied Article 69(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which applies to a person operating a construction, manufacturing, or other service business, to calculating corporate income, calculated an excessive rate of work progress at a higher level than the actual income as indicated in the following table, and prepared and submitted financial statements.

200, 199, 073, 974 275, 135, 201, 4571, 457 14, 936, 483, 103,802, 451, 973 209, 332, 987 407, 125, 395, 796, 1712, 062, 809 202502509,706, 687, 7630, 58630, 949, 4441, 154, 261, 681, 681, 681

C. In reporting and paying corporate tax for the business year of 2003 or 2008, the Plaintiff deducted the amount included in the above excessive gross income from calculating corporate income in accordance with Article 69(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 34(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and calculated the income at a lower level than the actual income as indicated in the following table, and submitted financial statements containing such contents.

The difference in the actual amount of the return in the table classification business year contained in the main sentence is 2003 498,373,807,150 488,883,05,067,787,063,787-407,787,741,207,429,79,797,979,797,967,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,969,97,97,97,969,97,97,967,97,97,97,94,97,97,97,97,196,97,97,2,97,97

D. From October 19, 2009 to January 8, 2010, the Daejeon Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and found the above facts and notified the Defendant of the collection of corporate tax. On August 2, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction of corporate tax by applying the general under-reported additional tax on the amount of the import declaration for the business year between 2003 and 2008, which was underestimated as above.

E. On March 30, 2011, the Board of Audit and Inspection requested Daejeon regional tax office to correct the shortage of corporate tax by applying the general underreporting penalty tax. On August 2, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of KRW 513,621,720 as corporate tax (additional tax) for the underreported amount of 2007 and 2008 business year by applying Article 47-3(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on December 28, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number in the case with additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In Article 47-3(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the term “unfair method”, which provides as the requirement for an unfair under-reported penalty tax, refers to a deceptive scheme or other fraudulent act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes by means of tax evasion with the intent to evade tax, and it does not constitute a mere failure to file a tax return under the tax law or a tax return by under-reporting the tax base without accompanying such act.

However, in paying corporate tax for the business year 2007 through 2008, the Plaintiff did not engage in active activities, such as manipulating the rate of work progress, and only, in the situation where total revenue is fixed, the Plaintiff reported the amount of income for the business year 2000 through 2002 in advance and reported the amount of income for the business year, and the amount included in the gross income until the end of the immediately preceding business year is deducted from the “amount included in the gross income for the pertinent business year” pursuant to Article 34(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, which provided that the “amount included in the gross income for the pertinent business year”

Even if the Plaintiff under-reported the amount of income by manipulating the rate of work progress in the business year 2007 or 2008, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff under-reported the corporate tax by the “unfair method” stipulated in Article 47-3(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act only by simply preparing a balance sheet and profit and loss statement without manipulating construction contract or profit and loss related documents.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

① Since there is a difference in the application of corporate tax and progressive tax rates depending on which business year reverts, even if the Plaintiff did not reduce or omit the total construction amount for the business year 200 through 2008, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff did not constitute underreporting as alleged by the Plaintiff. ② Even if the Plaintiff did not operate the construction progress rate in the business year 2003 through 208, Article 34(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act provides that “the amount included in gross income until the end of the business year concerned” should be deducted from the “amount included in the pertinent business year” under Article 34(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, so it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff already underreporting the revenue for the business year after 200 through 202, the Plaintiff’s act of underreporting the revenue for the business year 203 through 2008 should also be deemed to be the most unlawful basis for calculating the corporate tax base by means of a false underreporting or underreporting return of the tax base for the Plaintiff’s tax base for taxation purposes.

3. Conclusion

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

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Kim U.S. (Presiding Judge) Kang-hee et al.