2. The remaining appeal filed by the Plaintiff is dismissed.

3. 30% of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 70% by the Defendant respectively.

In the reasoning of the judgment of this court, the 11th of the disposition and the 2th of the disposition are legitimate. The plaintiff's assertion and the 2th of the disposition are as follows: (a) the term "tax base and tax amount" under the 2nd of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "00 won and determined tax amount (the amount before tax deduction)"; and (b) the term "00 won" under the last reduction shall be "00 won" shall be the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. In accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the corresponding part shall be cited.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to whether the period for filing a claim for rectification expires

1) According to Article 45-2 (4) l, and Article 45-2 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 206; hereinafter the same shall apply), where a person responsible for collecting withholding taxes pays income tax on the basis of annual settlement under Article 137 of the Income Tax Act, and submits a written notice of tax base and tax amount on the withholding receipt within 3 years after the due date for payment, the person responsible for withholding taxes or other income earners shall also request the head of the competent tax office to determine or correct the tax base and tax amount on the withholding receipt within 10 years after the due date for payment of the income tax for the following year. On the other hand, Article 128 (1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that the person liable for withholding taxes shall withhold the income tax for the following year and submit a notice of tax base and tax amount on the withholding receipt for the second time after the due date for payment of the income tax for the following year.

2) On March 16, 2006, the Plaintiff received notice of change in the amount of global income tax for the business year of 2003 as to the outsourcing transportation and related expenses from the Defendant, and on April 10, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a revised return and payment of global income tax for the business year of 2003, and filed a request for correction on April 2, 2007, within three years thereafter (in the absence of any dispute). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s request for correction was made within the period of filing a request for correction as stipulated in Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and is lawful. The Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is unacceptable.

B. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition

1) Whether Article 80 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is violated

① On March 16, 2006, the Plaintiff received the notification of change in the amount of income from the Defendant, and on April 10, 2006, reported to the Defendant 200 won earned income tax for the business year belonging to the National Tax Tribunal on May 18, 2006, and requested the National Tax Tribunal for the above disposition of income on May 18, 2006, and on October 116, 2006, the National Tax Tribunal (the requesting number 2006No 2019) appropriated the processed expenses of this case as the processed expenses that do not entail cash, and it cannot be deemed that the other party account was leaked from the injury, and it is reasonable to consider that the above amount was actually leaked to the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not have any dispute over the above processed expenses of this case to the Plaintiff 200, and that the Defendant did not have any dispute over the above processed expenses of this case to the effect that it was included in the calculation of the Plaintiff 210, and that it was excluded from the above processed expenses of this case.

2) Whether the processing expenses of this case were out of the company

A) Even if a corporate tax obligor included the processing costs in the deductible expenses when filing a report on the tax base of corporate tax and the amount of corporate tax, if the nominal debt corresponding to the processing costs in the balance sheet is appropriated as the liabilities on the balance sheet, the amount equivalent to the relevant expenses cannot be deemed to have been leaked out of the company, barring any change in the net assets of the relevant corporate entity, unless there is any other circumstance to recognize the outflow of the company (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du382, Jul. 2

B) First, whether the amount equivalent to the credit purchase amount of the instant case was out of the company.

The fact that the Plaintiff entered the accounts on August 30, 2003 with respect to the external transportation expenses for EE trade and the corresponding credit purchase expenses, and filed a revised report on April 7, 2005 on the account book that dealt with the accounts as listed below is no dispute between the parties. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the external transportation expenses for EEcom shall not be deemed to have been out of the company unless there are other circumstances that recognize the outflow of the company, as long as the amount of the credit purchase expenses for EEcom is included in the balance sheet of the 2003 business business business, even if the amount of the credit purchase expenses for EEcom is the corresponding expenses, unless there are other circumstances that recognize the outflow of the company, the amount equivalent to the credit purchase amount of the instant case shall not be deemed to have been out of the company (the circumstance that the Defendant was out of the company and the evidence alone are insufficient to

C) Next, whether the amount of the instant payment bill was out of the company is examined as follows.

In relation to the amount of the bill of this case, the fact that the plaintiff counteds in the account book as listed below is without dispute between the parties or can be acknowledged by the statement in Gap evidence No. 12. As seen in the account settlement records, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff, as the plaintiff issued and lent to HH, counted the nominal debt into the representative for the loan of the loan of this case. In addition, if the plaintiff appropriated the amount of the bill of this case, it is difficult to view that the other party's account should include the loan of this case, but it is hard to view that the other party's account accounts for the loan of the shareholders, executives, and employees, and it is reasonable to view that the amount of the loan of this case was leaked to the other party, and that the other party's account was discharged from the account account of the loan of the shareholders, officers, and employees on December 3, 2003.

It is insufficient to recognize that the obligation has not been fulfilled, and that the amount of the instant payment has not been leaked to others than the company, and there is no evidence to prove that the amount of the instant payment has not been leaked. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.

3) Sub-decisions

Of the processing costs of this case, only the amount of the bill paid out of the company shall be disposed of as a bonus for the representative and shall be notified of the change in the amount of income to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the legitimate tax base and the amount of tax determined on the earned income tax on the representative of the plaintiff for the business year 2003, are as shown in the attached Table. The defendant's disposition rejecting the plaintiff's request for correction is legitimate within the scope of 00 won and the amount of tax determined (the amount before deducting the already paid tax), and is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The part of the disposition in this case which exceeds the legitimate tax base and determined amount shall be revoked. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff falling under the order of revocation shall be revoked. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff shall be dismissed.