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

A. From March 27, 2001 to January 7, 2009, the Plaintiff is a representative director of the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government BB Energy Oil station Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB Energy Oil station”).

B. From January 19, 2009 to April 10, 2009, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office confirmed that the non-party company supplied the oil equivalent to the total supply value ofCC oil in the first taxable period of 2008, but did not issue and deliver the relevant sales tax invoice, and notified the director of the Incheon Regional Tax Office of this fact (hereinafter referred to as "the above supply value").

C. Accordingly, the head of the Incheon Tax Office reviewed the details of the report on the corporate tax base of the non-party company and confirmed the omission of the report on the sales of the non-indicted company. On February 8, 2010, the corporate tax base of the non-party company for the business year 2008 was adjusted from 000 to 000 won, and disposed of the non-indicted 00 won as a bonus to the plaintiff who is the representative director and notified the defendant

D. On March 2, 2011, according to the above income data, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the global income tax for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On June 1, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 1, 201, but was dismissed on August 9, 2011.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, and Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while operating Nonparty Company, issued sales tax invoices to customers in excess of the actual transaction price, and supplied oil toCC oil without issuing and delivering tax invoices, and used the oil amount received fromCC oil as the total operating fund of Nonparty Company, and it cannot be deemed that the oil amount was reverted to the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition imposing the comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff is unlawful, deeming that the sales amount of non-data belongs to the Plaintiff, not the non-party company, and thus, the Plaintiff’s sales amount was illegal.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) If a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite a fact of sales, the total amount omitted in sales, including the cost, shall be deemed to have been leaked to the company, barring special circumstances, and the income of a corporation that has been discharged to the company shall be disposed of as a bonus to the purchaser unless the ownership of the revenue is clear. In this case, the burden of proving special circumstances that the omission in sales was not leaked to the company or the ownership of the revenue is clear shall be deemed to have been borne by the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu6747, Aug. 14, 1992; 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002). The representative recognition system under the Corporate Tax Act is not based on the fact that the representative has generated the revenue, but rather on the fact that it can be recognized as a bonus to prevent an unfair act under the tax law by the corporation, regardless of the substance of the representative (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Nu3294.).

(2) In the instant case, the health team and the non-party company supplied oil equivalent to the sum of the supply price of 000 won toCC oil in the first taxable period of 2008, omitted a sales report, and barring special circumstances to deem that the above sales revenue was not leaked out from the company or that it is clear that the above sales revenue was reverted to the company, the representative of the non-party company, and the above special circumstance bears no choice but to dispose of income as a bonus for the plaintiff, who is the non-party company, and the burden of proof as above. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the above sales revenue of the non-indicted 4 through 9 (including the virtual number) was not leaked out from the company, or there is no evidence to recognize it. Furthermore, the plaintiff's assertion, while receiving the oil payment from the above non-indicted corporation and depositing it into the deposit account in the name of the plaintiff, and then withdrawing part of the above sales revenue from the non-party company and remitting it to the non-party company's non-party company's deposit account from time to time after deposit account.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is legitimate, which imposed comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff, deeming that the pertinent non-data sales amount belonged to the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.