Plaintiff, Appellants and Appellants

[Court of origin]

Defendant, Appellant and Appellant.

○ Head of tax office

On August 5, 2013, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of KRW 00,000,000 as well as penalty tax for bad faith in filing a return among the disposition imposing global income tax for the Plaintiff for the tax year 2010.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including penalty tax of KRW 00,000,000 and penalty tax of KRW 0,000,00 for failure to file a return) for the Plaintiff on August 5, 2013 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

[Plaintiff]

제1심 판결 중 원고 패소 부분을 취소한다. 피고가 2013. 8. 5. 원고에 대하여 한 2010년 귀속 종합소득세 부과처분 중 ㅇㅇㅇ원 부분(본세 부분)을 취소한다.

[Defendant]

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation part is dismissed (However, the defendant appealed in the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, and revoked ex officio the disposition imposing penalty tax for failure to report and penalty tax for failure to pay due

This part of the judgment is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 5 to No. 4). Thus, this part of the judgment is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Where a judgment of the administrative disposition regarding the claim for revocation of the portion of penalty tax among the instant lawsuit is revoked, such disposition becomes null and void, and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012).

On the other hand, the defendant was found to have made ex officio a decision of correction to cancel ex officio the amount of penalty tax of 00,000,000 and penalty tax of 0,000,000 for failure to report during the disposition of this case. Thus, the defendant's claim for cancellation of ex officio as to the above part of the lawsuit of this case is to seek cancellation of a disposition which has already become invalid and is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. Determination as to the claim for revocation of the principal portion among the dispositions of this case

(a) Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is amended as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of appeal No. 4 through No. 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of the addition of the following paragraphs as to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance. Therefore, this part of the reasoning of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article

��제4면 제10행 내지 제12행을 "☆☆주택은 선수금 및 단기차입금으로 유입된 금원의 사용을 회계처리함에 있어 정확한 사용처가 확인되지 않은 금액을 장부상 대표자 가지급금으로 대체처리 하였는데, 실제로는 그 중 대부분의 채무가 존재하지 않는 것이거나 해당 채권자에게 변제되었으므로 원고가 취득하였다고 볼 수 없어 쟁점금액에서 제외되어야 한다."고 수정한다.

B. Additional Judgment of this Court

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s additional assertion

The amount of income disposition in the Plaintiff includes the amount of money received by the △△ Housing in accordance with the real estate transaction agreement between the △△ Housing in the △△△, KimA, and the privateB, and KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000

2) Determination

In addition to the overall purport of each of the above evidences, the following circumstances, namely, at the head of the account of the Do government in Do government in Do government in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, KRW 50,000,000 as of December 31, 2009, and KRW 00,000 for KimA as of December 31, 200, and KRW 00,000,000 for short-term loans on May 29, 2007, have increased as of May 29, 2007. However, it is not possible to find the details of alternative treatment with the payment by the representative, and there is no specific evidence to support them other than the plaintiff's assertion. In light of the above, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion by the plaintiff only by the statement of Nos. 3, 4, and 111, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case that seeks revocation of the penalty tax of this case shall be dismissed as unlawful, and the claim for revocation of the remaining principal tax of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Accordingly, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance that has concluded a different conclusion shall be revoked, the plaintiff's lawsuit against this part shall be dismissed, and the plaintiff's appeal against the remaining part shall be dismissed as it is without merit.