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

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation operating a specialized business in the field of system management, etc., received 110,615,000 won (the total amount of the value-added tax plus the value-added tax is 121,675,500 won) from the supply price of 110,615,00 won (the total amount of the value-added tax is 121,675,500 won) from the corporation (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") around 2005, and added the amount to the account book. The Plaintiff reported value-added tax and corporate tax by deducting the amount equivalent to the above amount from the output tax amount at the time of filing the return of the value-added tax and corporate tax, and reported corporate tax for the business year 2005.

B. On October 16, 2009, the Defendant confirmed that the instant tax invoice was a processing tax invoice issued without a real transaction, deducted the input tax amount at the time of return of value-added tax, and added the supply amount included in deductible expenses at the time of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax return to the deductible expenses to revise and notify the value-added tax and corporate tax, and disposed of the amount of KRW 121,675,50 for the year 2005 as the bonus as the representative’s bonus, and issued a notice of change in the amount of income (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a request to the Tax Tribunal for an inquiry on January 12, 2010 upon filing an objection against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on March 31, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) It was true that the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case without real transactions and appropriated the processing costs in order to raise funds equivalent to the proceeds of supply. However, since 102,70,000 won among them was used for the business by paying for all kinds of entertainment expenses, etc. to the parties concerned, the disposition of this case on the premise that the entire amount of the tax invoice of this case was leaked to others and that it was unlawful.

(2) Even though the above amount cannot be recognized as business expenses, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the above amount to the personal account of its officers and employees for business purposes, so it should be deemed that the income of its officers and employees belongs to the individual. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the entire amount of the instant tax invoice belongs to the representative director is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

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

C. Determination

(1) Legal principles

Where a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite the fact of sales, the total amount omitted from sales shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the company, except in extenuating circumstances. In such cases, the special circumstance that the omission in sales is not leaked out of the company shall be proved by the corporation asserting such omission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du3726, Jan. 11, 2002).

In addition, Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8831 of Dec. 31, 2007) and the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19328 of Feb. 9, 2006) provide that, in determining or revising the corporate tax base, the amount included in the calculation of earnings is obviously out of the amount included in the calculation of earnings, but the amount of which ownership is unclear shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative. Such recognition of the representative under the Corporate Tax Act is not based on the fact that such income has accrued to the representative, but rather on certain facts that can be recognized as such act in order to prevent unfair acts under the tax law, the purpose is to consider it as a bonus to the representative without any condition regardless of the substance (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da49789, Sept. 18, 2008

(2) Determination

As seen earlier, the fact that the Plaintiff included the processing cost in the account book by acquiring the processing cost amounting to KRW 121,675,500 by issuing the processing tax invoice, and thereby raising so-called funds equivalent to the above amount is as follows. As such, it is deemed that there is a special circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff’s use of KRW 102,70,000 as the Plaintiff claimed in the amount of the processing cost calculated by receiving the false tax invoice was not leaked to others due to its business.

In full view of the aforementioned legal principles, facts acknowledged earlier, and the following circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff used the above 102,70,000,00 won to pay to officers and employees for business expenses for business activities, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

C. The evidence Nos. 11-1 through 13, evidence Nos. 15-1 through 14 (each application for payment of confidential expenses) include each "use content", "amount of application", "special engineer" column, etc. It is difficult to avoid the possibility that all the contents of such "use" have been prepared in a lump sum after the fact in light of appearance and form. Furthermore, according to the "Public Notice of Verifying Entertainment Business Related to Entertainment Expenses" (Public Notice No. 2004-1) that was in force at the time of the occurrence of the taxable cause of this case, it is difficult to believe that the entertainment expenses disbursement evidence has the content of "the contact for the purpose", "the name and name of the contact party", "the trade name, business registration number, name of the department of the contact party, and name of the counter party", but each of the above applications for payment is omitted.

O The Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case and appropriated the cash shortage from entertainment expenses incurred during the period of time. The remaining funds were returned to the Plaintiff’s passbook, and thus the above funds were reserved in the company. However, there is no specific assertion as to the amount of re-deposit, the time of deposit, the method of deposit, etc. claimed by the Plaintiff as reserved in the company. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize only the statement of No. 17-1 and No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

O The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case based on the premise that the above amount was entirely leaked to the representative director who is the largest DD, largestCC, and KimA's personal account, which is the executive officers and employees, was unlawful. However, the representative standing loan system under the Corporate Tax Act provides that certain facts which can be recognized as such act in order to prevent unfair acts under tax law should be regarded as a bonus to the unconditioned representative regardless of their substance, and there is no specific assertion or proof about the time of transfer, size or method of transfer, etc. to the personal account of the executive officers and employees ( even based on the evidence No. 17-1 and No. 2, it appears that it was transferred from the plaintiff's personal account to the above least DD, maximumCC, and KimA's personal account, but rather, it appears that the above maximum D, maximumCC, and KimA's personal account was deposited in the plaintiff's personal account due to non-legal rules).

(3) Sub-decisions

It is legitimate that the Defendant’s disposition of this case was made on the ground that the entire tax invoice of this case 121,675,500 won was carried out of the company, but it is clear that it was reverted to the representative.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.