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

A. BBBcos Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'BBcos') are companies that purchase and manufacture clothing and export them to Japan.

B. From January 13, 2005 to April 21, 2005, the director of the Incheon District Tax Office conducted a tax offense investigation into the non-party company's 2002 business years and 2003 business years, and as a result, the non-party company's 2002 business years and 2000 won, including the purchase amount of the non-party company's 2002 business years and the purchase amount of the non-party company's 2003 business years, were determined as the processing purchase, and notified the defendant thereof.

C. On September 1, 2007, the Defendant notified the head of Incheon Tax Office of the foregoing taxation data, denied the amount of the issue from the deductible expenses, and deemed that the ownership was unclear, the Defendant disposed of the amount of the issue as bonus to the Plaintiff, which is the actual representative of the non-party company, as a bonus, and subsequently corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax of 00 won for the year 2002 and the global income tax of 000 won for the year 2003.

D. On August 14, 2008, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant preceding disposition, filed a claim for revocation of the instant preceding disposition with the court 2008Guhap32683, which was sentenced against the Plaintiff, and appealed with Seoul High Court 2009Nu21088, and the above court found the issue amount as the processed purchase by the Defendant on November 23, 2010. However, it is reasonable to view that the account books or documentary evidence kept by the non-party company in the business year 2003 constituted cases where it is impossible to use the method of substantial taxation because the important part of the sales cost, such as the purchase of goods and raw materials, is insufficient or false, and thus, the sales cost or the corporate tax base and the amount verified as the outflow from the company should be determined by the method of estimated taxation, and the portion on which the Plaintiff imposed the comprehensive income tax for the year 2003, not by the above method, was unlawful, and the judgment of the court below revoked the disposition imposing the global income tax for 2003 years above.

E. After that, the director of the Incheon Tax Office estimated corporate tax for the business year 2003 of the non-party company, corrected the bonus disposal amount for the plaintiff to KRW 1,602,170,544, and notified the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant revoked ex officio the disposition imposing global income tax for the plaintiff in 2003, and decided and notified the plaintiff on June 1, 201, the amount of global income tax for the year 2003.

F. On September 5, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 5, 201, and was dismissed on November 24, 201.

[Based on Recognition] The entry in Gap, 2, 3, 9, 10, and 10, and Eul, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The instant disposition is a disposition that violates the res judicata effect of the judgment prior to the revocation of the entire disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2003.

2) At the time of the instant disposition, five years have already elapsed since the exclusion period of corporate tax for the business year 2003, and the special exclusion period under Article 26-2(2) Subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be applied.

3) The non-party company is a small enterprise under Article 7(1)2 (a) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the defendant, when calculating the corporate tax for the business year 2003, was assessed by estimation according to the method of standard expense rate even though it is based on the method of simple expense rate under Article 104(2)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18312, Mar. 17, 2004; hereinafter the same)

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

The scope of res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment shall not be determined in the form of the text and text of the judgment, but shall be recognized in comparison with the reasons indicated in the judgment, and in the case where a judgment revoking an administrative disposition becomes final and conclusive due to an error in the administrative disposition, the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment shall be limited to the reasons indicated in the judgment, and thus, a new administrative disposition taken by the administrative authority upon supplementing the reasons indicated in the final and conclusive judgment shall not conflict with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment as a disposition separate from the previous disposition revoked by the final and conclusive judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu13057, Feb. 11, 1997). On the premise that the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment on this case is justifiable, the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment on public health, and that the Defendant’s point of view is limited to the portion on which the Plaintiff was imposed with the comprehensive income tax for 2003 years since the Defendant did not follow the method of estimated taxation among the preceding dispositions in this case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part cannot be justified.

2) Judgment on the second argument

The special exclusion period stipulated in Article 26-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is a special provision for exclusion period, is no longer possible to take any measure such as a new decision or decision of correction, as well as a decision of reduction, upon expiration of the exclusion period under Article 26-2 (1) of the same Act. In light of the fact that the procedure of litigation, such as an administrative appeal or administrative litigation, is delayed for a long period, and that the judgment, etc. is conducted after the exclusion period, it is established to prevent unreasonable cases from taking any measure according to the judgment, etc., the taxation authority is only able to take a new decision or decision of correction in accordance with the pertinent judgment, etc., or a subsequent disposition incidental thereto, within one year from the date when the judgment, etc. becomes final and conclusive, and it is not reasonable to view that the above provision is allowed only for the plaintiff to take a new decision or increase in global income tax, and it is not reasonable to 20 years prior to the final and conclusive decision of the court prior to the above determination, and that the above provision belongs to 20 years thereafter.

3) Judgment on the third argument

Article 104(2)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18174, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter referred to as "the provisions of this case") was newly established to make an estimation or correction by establishing new tax invoices under Article 104(2)3 (hereinafter referred to as "the provisions of this case"), and the provisions of Article 7(1)2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act are recognized as having been applied mutatis mutandis to the method prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in a reasonable manner, such as the method applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 143(3)1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act under the simplified expense rate"). Accordingly, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service applied the simple expense rate only to the case where a small enterprise suspected of tax evasion closes its business without any suspicion of tax evasion, and then, issued 200 copies of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act to each tax office (Article 23).14).

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.