2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The part of the disposition in the attached Form No. 2 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on October 00, 2012, which exceeds the amount stated in the attached Form No. 2, shall be revoked.

The Defendant issued a false sales tax invoice in order to pretend that the Plaintiff leased subway stores from AA and BB and did not report the subleases received by sub-leases and actually operated the store. On October 00, 2012, the Defendant decided and notified the corporate tax and value-added tax as shown in the separate sheet, and notified the change of income (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s representative director, Kim 00 et al. were prosecuted due to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 0, 2014 (Seoul Central District Court 20*** Mahap000, Seoul High Court 20**No000, hereinafter referred to as “related criminal judgment”). The relevant criminal judgment included the Plaintiff’s corporate account, the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account in the name of CCC, the national bank account in the name of DD, the EE bank account in the name of DD, and the remaining accounts (hereinafter referred to as “instant accounts”) excluding the Plaintiff’s corporate account in the name of the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to deem the money deposited in the said account as the sublease received by the Plaintiff, and calculated the amount of tax evasion by including some expenses actually paid by the Plaintiff in the deductible expenses for each business year.

2) On October 0, 2015, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to rectify the notification of changes in the tax base of corporate tax, value-added tax, tax amount, and income amount by examining whether the amount deposited to the account in this case was personal financial transactions unrelated to the Plaintiff and whether the amount omitted in sales was leaked to an actual purpose.

3) The Defendant cannot confirm whether the amount deposited in the instant account is personal financial transactions unrelated to the Plaintiff, and thus, it is extremely difficult for the tax authority to request the Plaintiff to submit documentary evidence, but failed to submit additional documents, and thus, it cannot be required to prove the amount required in criminal proceedings. In the tax litigation, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff entrusted the sale of the store to its officers and employees, etc., and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff entrusted the sale of the store directly, the Defendant terminated the re-audit decision and maintained the same disposition.

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

B. Determination

Even though it is not bound by the facts established in a criminal trial in a lawsuit disputing the validity of a tax disposition, it shall not be rejected without permission due to the fact-finding materials, unless there are extenuating circumstances that make it impossible to employ the facts which have been recognized in the final and conclusive criminal judgment, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu411, Oct. 8, 1985; 2010Du23378, Aug. 17, 2012).On the other hand, the Tax Tribunal makes a reinvestigation decision in the form of a decision on a taxpayer's request for adjudgment, etc., and such reinvestigation decision is also determined by the Tax Tribunal, and thus, the administrative agency is bound by the decision, and the relevant administrative agency must immediately take necessary measures in accordance with the purport of the decision (Article 80 of the Framework

Articles 81, 81, and 65). In particular, the binding force of the ruling extends to the judgment on specific illegal causes, such as the text of the ruling and the recognition and judgment of facts constituting the premise thereof, i.e., disposition.

The relevant criminal judgment recognized that the instant account cannot be seen as the Plaintiff’s account or that the money deposited in the account belongs to the Plaintiff. The Tax Tribunal also decided to re-examine the amount deposited in the instant account in the relevant criminal judgment to the effect that it does not fall under the Plaintiff’s borrowed account. Nevertheless, the Defendant merely requested the Plaintiff to submit materials proving that the money deposited in the instant account is an individual fund transaction and then issued the instant disposition. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the re-audit was conducted in accordance with the purport of the re-audit decision.

The circumstances cited by the Defendant as the reason for disposition are insufficient to deem that the money deposited in the instant account was attributed to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, such part should be excluded from the subject of the instant disposition. Accordingly, when calculating a reasonable amount of tax, it is identical to the entry in the separate sheet of tax amount, and the portion exceeding the amount indicated in the separate sheet of tax amount in the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.