The imposition of value-added tax of 100,962,221 won, and 124,031,149 in the imposition of corporate tax for the year 2010

shall dismiss each request for revocation with respect to each excess of the Board.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

A. The Defendant’s corporate tax for the year 2010 for the Plaintiff, October 18, 2013, KRW 130,382,850, and KRW 2010 for the Plaintiff

Value-added tax for one year, 33,694,371 won, value-added tax for two years, 201, 237,316 won, and 2011

Value-added tax for one term, 364, 934 won, value-added tax for two years in 201, 6,945,990 won, and one term portion for one year in 2012

Each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 30,385,131, and value-added tax of KRW 4,583,061 for two years, 2012

(b) KRW 812,126,763 as of September 27, 2013, KRW 47,345,904 as of September 27, 2011;

169,568,96 won, belonging to year 2012, was revoked as a bonus of the NoAA by its representative, and the change of income amount was disposed of as a bonus of the NoA.

A. While engaging in the wholesale and retail business, the Plaintiff purchased originals from TT Industry Co., Ltd. and H, H, K, etc. and supplied them to small and medium-sized originals manufacturers.

B. The Defendant omitted sales of KRW 1.57 billion from 2010 to 2012 by deeming that the Plaintiff’s trading price of KRW 1.5 billion was paid from 2010 to 2012 to 30,000 (this case’s borrowed account; hereinafter “the instant borrowed account”) and omitted sales of KRW 933,00 won by not issuing a tax invoice to the seller around 2010 or by decreasing the supply price; 3.4,00 won in total from 2010 to 36,00 won in 20,000 won in 1.36,000 won in 20,000 won in 1.36,000 won in 20,000 won in 1.3,000 won in 206,000 won in 20,000 won in 20,000 won in 3,000 won in 2,013381, 20136,316.

C. On December 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 23, 2013. On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff received from the Tax Tribunal a decision that “The Tax Tribunal shall correct the tax base and the notice amount of changes in the amount of tax by subtracting the tax base and the amount of tax and the notice amount of changes in the amount of income from 15,798,340 won for the first term of 2010 and 1,452,458 won for the second term of 2010 (Transaction (Transaction) and 2010, respectively, and the remainder of the appeal shall be dismissed.”

D. Accordingly, in accordance with the purport of the above decision, the Defendant: (a) KRW 3,079,549 of value-added tax for the first term, 2010; (b)

In 2010, 275,095, and 6,351,706, among the corporate tax for the year 2010, the amount of value-added tax for the year 2010 remains 30,614,822, 100,962,221, and 124,031,149.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 6, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, 2-2-3, Eul evidence 1, 2-2-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings; 2. Among the lawsuits in this case, the part of the claim for revocation which was lawfully revoked by the defendant's re-revision decision does not have the interest in the lawsuit to seek revocation again as to the part of the disposition for revocation which was lawfully revoked by the correction or re-revision decision, and it is sufficient to seek revocation of the original disposition for revocation of the original disposition for revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Nu393, Nov. 23, 1982; 81Nu393, Nov. 23, 1982; 130,382,850; 361, value-added tax for 200,371, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2016, 2016.

3. Whether each of the dispositions in this case and the notice of change in income amount is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff’s failure to report the sales of the instant borrowed account is not the Plaintiff’s sales amount on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to report the sales of the instant borrowed account is not the Plaintiff’s sales amount. Of them, the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 1,035,69,910 is not the Plaintiff’s sales amount. ① The amount of money owned by an individual of the No.A.A. (480,201,00) and returned after he/she personally lent the instant borrowed account, or ② the amount of money received in cash in the transaction in which the sales tax invoice was issued in a normal manner (61,025,862) or ③ the amount of money received in a bearer account (61,025,862) or ③ the amount of money returned by the transaction partner after having first paid the money to purchase the original account (277,750,648 won), and ④ the amount of money received as a borrowed account due to the need for the transaction in which the sales tax invoice was issued normally (216,72,400 won).

2) Since the amount of processed sales cannot be included in the Plaintiff’s gross income from the beginning, even if the return of the transaction partner was not confirmed, it cannot be disposed of as a bonus for the representative. Furthermore, even if the amount of goods deposited in the borrowed account was temporarily released from the company, it is deemed that Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission withdrawn most of them and deposited in the corporate account in the form of provisional collection. Thus, it cannot be disposed of as a bonus for the representative pursuant to the purport of Article 106(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on each of the instant dispositions

A) Generally, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a disposition imposing tax, the burden of proving the existence and amount of taxation is the person liable to impose the tax. However, in a case where the facts revealed in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, the other party cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent disposition imposing tax are unlawful disposition lacking the taxation requirement unless it proves that the pertinent facts are inappropriate to apply the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du23378, Aug. 17, 2012). Furthermore, in a case where the tax authority imposes a disposition imposing corporate tax, etc. on the grounds that the amount of sales omitted at the time of filing a return of the initial corporate tax, etc. based on the tax investigation on the taxpayer, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the existence and amount, etc. of the omitted gains, but where the taxpayer proves the existence of an omission of sales which is not properly included in the books kept by the tax authority through the existence of the next account used in the actual management, taking into account the difficulty of proof and the balance between the parties and the subsequent account.

B) Each description of the evidence mentioned above and the evidence set forth in Nos. 5 to 12 (including documentary evidence with a serial number)

(4) In light of the following circumstances, the tax authorities: (a) obtained the Plaintiff’s business establishment’s 2010-year sales account book and the name account book of this case; (b) conducted comparison with the previous sales tax invoice, which was entered in the 2010-year sales account; (c) issued without the issuance of the sales tax invoice or after the reduction of the supply price (total supply price: 930 million won) and some of the details deposited into the instant borrowed account (total supply price: 1.7 billion won) were omitted from 2010 to 2012 (the Plaintiff’s business establishment did not have any specific relationship between the Plaintiff’s 201-year sales account and the 2009-year sales account book and the 2012-year sales account; and (d) it is reasonable to conclude that the Plaintiff’s 20-year sales account and the 10-year sales account were omitted.

C) Thus, the plaintiff should clarify the facts that the amount deposited in the name account of this case is not related to the sale or that the plaintiff reported the sale lawfully. In full view of the evidence mentioned above and the following circumstances acknowledged through the statement of Gap evidence and Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 51 (including documentary evidence attached with a serial number), it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff does not constitute the omitted amount due to the reasons as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove that the total sum of KRW 1,035,69,910 out of the amount deposited in the name account of this case does not constitute the omitted amount due to the reasons as alleged by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(1) There is no objective and reliable evidence, such as a loan certificate, supporting the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part (total 480,201,000 won) that Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission received a return of personal loan. The Plaintiff submitted each written confirmation by the person who remitted the money to the instant borrowed account as evidence. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion itself differs from Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission, but it is difficult to believe that there is no objective evidence, such as the details of remittance from Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission to support his claim. Meanwhile, the witness Kim J made a statement that does not coincide with the contents of the written confirmation (Evidence 9) prepared and submitted by Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission in relation to the process of borrowing money in this Court. In full view of the overall content and attitude of testimony, it is difficult to believe that there is no other objective evidence. Meanwhile, the tax authority accepted part of this part of the assertion and excluded it from the amount of sales omission.

(2) There is no evidence to support this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the goods received in cash in the transaction lawfully issuing a tax invoice were deposited in a bearer account (total of 61,025,862 won).

(3) The portion asserted that the money was unrelated to sales, such as the money that was first paid to purchase the original money from the customer but the customer did not seek the original money (total amount).

277,750,648) The determination of each sales amount shall be as follows:

(4) The part stating that the sales tax invoice was requested as the borrowed account as required for the transaction in which the sales tax invoice was issued normally (216,72,400 won) is determined by each sales item as listed below.

2) Determination on the notice of change in the income amount of this case

A) Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26981, Feb. 12, 2016)

According to the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the same Act, where the attribution of the amount included in the calculation of earnings is unclear when the corporate tax base is corrected, it shall be deemed that it belongs to the representative of the relevant corporation and the disposal of the income as a bonus. Such disposal of income is based on the premise that the amount included in the calculation of earnings is "amount included in the calculation of earnings."

Based on the statement of No. 4 (Evidence No. 4), the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition of notice of change in the income amount was in violation of the laws and subordinate statutes as seen above, on the premise that the Defendant disposed of part of the sales amount of SS Textiles, which was deemed as the bonus of No. 8 and excluded from gross income. However, if the evidence and the statement of No. 8 were to show the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant issued a false sales tax invoice to S Textiles, and then transferred the amount equivalent to the value of supply to the S Textiles to the corporation account, and then returned the amount equivalent to the value to the S Textiles. The amount corresponding to the processing sales amount deposited to the corporation account was disbursed as the purchase price at most of the purchase price at the S Textiles. It is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the remainder of the sales amount other than the refund for S Textiles out of the sales amount deposited in the name of this case was omitted from the sales amount of the No. 8 (Evidence 7).

B) Meanwhile, as long as the revenue of a corporation that was released from the company without being entered in the account book is not clear, it is inevitable to dispose of it as a bonus for the representative pursuant to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. In this case, the burden of proving that it is clear that it is attributed to the representative is the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du611, May 23, 2013). The Plaintiff asserted that the Trade Union withdrawn most of the revenue omitted from the sales of the instant borrowed account in cash and deposited it again into the corporate account, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above assertion

In addition, Article 106 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "a case where the pertinent amount is recovered within the return deadline and the tax adjustment is included in the gross income and reported as a requirement to dispose of the amount unfairly released from the company as an internal reserve." However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff satisfies the above requirements, the plaintiff's assertion on

4. Conclusion

If so, 30,614,822 won, 2010 won, among the lawsuits of this case, the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2010.

Among the imposition disposition of value-added tax for a period of two years, 100,962,221 won, and the imposition disposition of corporate tax for a year of 2010

124,031,149 won in excess of each of the above parts are unlawful and thus dismissed.

J. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds.