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

A. The Plaintiff reported and paid value-added tax from February 2, 2007 to February 2, 2008 as a Korean branch of a foreign corporation that runs a market research and public opinion poll service business (hereinafter “the pertinent tax standard return”) (hereinafter “instant tax standard return”).

B. In accordance with Articles 18 and 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8826 of Dec. 31, 2007, hereinafter the same), the Defendant reported and paid value-added tax within 50 days after the end of each preliminary and final return period. However, the Defendant: (a) reported and paid value-added tax one day after each of the following reporting period; (b) reported and paid the value-added tax; (c) reported and paid the additional tax during the pertinent taxable period; (d) the additional tax for failing to submit the list of tax invoices; and (e) the additional tax for failing to submit the list of tax invoices; and (e) imposed the zero-rate tax base return of the zero-rate tax base; and (e) imposed the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of February 2007, 2007; and (e) the first half year of February 2008, 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 30, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on October 26, 201.

[Based on Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap (including household numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), 2, and 5, and Eul 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The filing date of each of the instant declarations was indicated on the 20th day of the following month following the end of the preliminary return period and the taxable period, but in fact, the statutory filing date was lawfully reported within the statutory filing date (the 19th day of the following month in the taxable period), and the payment due date was delayed each day due to the delay in internal decision, but it is contrary to the principle of taxation based on which the Defendant estimated and taxed the return by the deadline

2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s failure to prove the actual date of return is considered to be a return after the deadline, and that the taxation authorities have not raised any specific objection for a long time without providing appropriate administrative guidance on this, there are justifiable grounds for the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) In arranging the date of each report of this case, the date of receipt on the screen, the date of filing on the MJ01 screen, and the date of filing on the screen of MJ01, as follows (attached 1).

2) The status of the Plaintiff’s return and payment of value-added tax after the instant taxable period is as follows.

3) The plaintiff submitted a written request for pre-assessment review on June 7, 2010 and attached a written reason for the request (No. 19-4), and some of the above contents are as follows.

[Basis of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1 to 19, and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

1) According to Article 85-4(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) Article 85-4(1) of the same Act, when a tax authority receives a tax base return, it provides that a taxpayer shall be issued a receipt, but the same proviso and Article 65-8(2) of the Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) may not be issued a receipt if a taxpayer submits a document by mail or facsimile. The plaintiff also filed a tax base return electronically or by delivering it to a public official in charge of receipt and by delivering it to a third party, and there is no receipt certificate for the tax base return, and when the tax base return of this case reaches the defendant, it shall be determined by relevant evidence and circumstances, and the burden of proof for this shall be borne to the defendant

2) Whether the Plaintiff complies with the reporting deadline

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the purport of the entire facts and arguments, and it is determined that the plaintiff passed the 19th day following the end of the taxable period, which is the reporting and payment deadline, due to mistake during the taxable period of this case and reported on 20 days

① Articles 18(4) and 19(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provide that the tax payable for the relevant taxable period shall be payable along with the scheduled return and final return of value-added tax. The date of each of the instant declarations and the actual payment dates of each of the instant returns are the same (Provided, That the exception is the same, however, from January 2, 2009 to February 2, 2010), and the date of each return are the same as the date of each return and the date of each tax return. Accordingly, the scheduled two-years, the final and conclusive amount for February 2007, and the date of each return on the scheduled amount for February 2008, and the date of each return on the scheduled amount for February 2008 (20 days respectively) will coincide with the date of actual return.

② It is recognized that the report date on the second half of 2008 was entered as January 20, 2009, and that the date of the report on the screen is February 19, 2009. However, the date of the report on the above report is far from February 20, 2009, the date of which is the date of payment, and only one month after the due date of the report, there is no specific reason to submit the report. The last date of the report is accepted in large amount and the department in charge of taxation is likely to mislead the person who received the report on the screen to enter the date of the report on the MJ01 screen within the due date, and the date of receipt on the screen is described as " February 20, 2009," and the plaintiff itself appears to be different from the date of report on which 20 days have been submitted, and it appears to be different from the date of report on the screen 20 days have been submitted on February 20, 2008.

3) Whether there exists a justifiable reason for an exemption from additional tax

In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the Act in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without any justifiable reason, and the taxpayer’s intentional and negligent acts are not considered and does not constitute justifiable grounds that do not cause the taxpayer to breach of his/her duty (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10780, Jun. 24, 2004). In this case, the return to the instant case does not fall under the cases where the statutory meaning is meaningful in the interpretation of the tax law, and the return deadline of value-added tax does not fall under the cases where there is no valid and appropriate administrative measure, and it is difficult to view that the return was approved as a legitimate report, and there is no justifiable reason that does not cause any delay in the return to the Plaintiff. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

(c)