2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

It is as stated in the separate sheet of claim.

A. From September 23, 1998 to March 2012, the Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who engages in the manufacturing of new drugs for private dancing in the trade name of “AAAA” (title BB BB prior to the change; hereinafter referred to as “instant business establishment”) from △-dong, Magu, Seoul, and was subject to double-entry bookkeeping pursuant to Article 160 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) from 2009 to 2011.

나. 〇〇세무서장은 2013. 4. 29.부터 2013. 6. 17.까지 원고의 2009년부터 2011년까지의 소득을 대상으로 개인통합조사(이하 '이 사건 조사'라 한다)를 실시한결과,원고가 직원인 aaa, 처남인 bbb, 아들인 ccc 명의의 각 은행계좌(이하 통칭하여 '이사건 계좌'라 한다)를 통해 이 사건 사업장에서 발생한 매출액을 수령하고도 그 신고를 누락하였다고 판단하였다.

다. 이 사건 조사 결과에 따라 원고는 2013. 6. 24. 2011년 귀속 종합소득세와 이사건 사업장의 2011년 제1기 및 제2기 부가가치세에 대한 수정신고를 하였고(이하'이 사건 수정신고'라 한다), 원고에게, 〇〇세무서장은 2013. 8. 1. 2009년 및 2010년 귀속 각 종합소득세를, 피고는 2013. 8. 5. 이 사건 사업장의 2009년 제1기부터 2010년 제2기까지 각 부가가치세를 각 경정ㆍ고지하였다(이하 피고의 위 부가가치세 경정・고지를 '1차 부과처분'이라 한다)

라. ■■지방국세청은 2015. 6. 8.부터 2015. 6. 25.까지 〇〇세무서의 업무에 대한종합감사를 실시한 결과, 2009년부터 2011년까지 이 사건 사업장에서 발생한 신용카드 매출액을 이 사건 조사 당시 이 사건 계좌 입금액을 기준으로 산출한 전체 매출액과 구별되는 별도의 매출로 판단하고는,〇〇세무서장 및 피고에게 이 사건조사당시 확인된 수입금액에 위 신용카드 매출액 상당액을 가산하여 원고의 수입금액을 다시 경정하고 그에 따른 종합소득세 및 부가가치세를 경정하도록 시정지시를 하였다.

E. Accordingly, on October 1, 2015, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of each value-added tax (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff from the first to the second period from 2009 to 2011 (hereinafter “instant taxable period”) (hereinafter “the second imposition disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff’s revised return related to the value-added tax at the instant place of business, the tax base and amount of tax (including additional taxes), according to the Defendant’s first imposition disposition, and the tax base and amount of tax (including additional taxes) according to the Defendant’

G. On March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the correction of value-added tax after subtracting sales of KRW 100,000,000 for the first period of June 24, 2011, which was revised on June 24, 2013, which was related to the amount deposited in the cCD bank account. However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for correction on May 17, 2016 (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

H. On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the second disposition and filed an appeal with each Tax Tribunal on July 29, 2016.

I. After a joint hearing of the Plaintiff’s above appeals, the Tax Tribunal corrected the amount of tax on which no additional tax is imposed by the date following the date of notification of the first imposition of value-added tax for each value-added tax from the first to the second from April 2, 2010 among the second imposition dispositions on April 17, 2017, and by the date of notification of the second imposition of value-added tax for the first and second imposition taxes in 2011, and by the date following the date of notification of the return of the Plaintiff’s return of correction of the amount of tax on which the second imposition was notified

(j) On May 26, 2017, the Defendant, upon the decision of the Tax Tribunal, did not impose additional tax for arrears from the date of the first tax disposition following the instant tax investigation or from the day following the date of the filing of the instant revised return and payment until the date of the second tax disposition, respectively, and notified the Plaintiff on June 15, 2017 (hereinafter “the second tax disposition subject to reduction”). The amount of tax following the instant tax disposition is as follows.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. Of the disposition imposing value-added tax on August 9, 2013, the disposition of partial correction of the claim for revocation of an unfair under-reported additional tax is not to add only the portion that was initially reported or determined as is, but also to include the increased portion, and then re-determines a single tax amount as a whole. As such, the initial declaration or determination is deemed to lose independent value by absorbing the disposition for rectification, and as a matter of principle, it shall be limited to an appeal litigation regardless of whether the appeal period against the initial declaration or decision has expired, and the taxpayer may also assert illegal grounds for the initial declaration or decision in the appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du17390, May 14, 2009).

The Plaintiff’s claim for revocation in this part is that the Defendant’s primary imposition of value-added tax (including additional tax) for each of the Value-Added Tax (including additional tax) from the first to the second period from the second period from 2009 to the Plaintiff on August 5, 2013, which was corrected and notified by the Plaintiff on June 24, 201, and each of the Value-Added Tax (including additional tax) from the first to the second period from June 24, 2013, which was reported by the Plaintiff on June 24, 2013, is part of the illegal under-reported additional tax. According to the aforementioned circumstances of the disposition as seen earlier, the first imposition and the instant revised return were absorption into the second imposition that constitutes the adjusted disposition, and thus, they are not subject to an appeal litigation in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine. Accordingly, the Plaintiff

B. Part of a claim for revocation of disposition of refusal against the claim for rectification of value-added tax for the first term of January 201

Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014) provides that a person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory due date of return may file a request with the head of the competent tax office for the determination or correction of the tax base and amount of national tax for which the initial return or revised return was filed within three years after the statutory due date of return expires. The amendment of the foregoing provision was made by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; the period of filing a request for correction was extended within five years after the statutory due date of return expires; Article 7 of the Addenda of the amended Act, as a matter of principle, provides that the period of filing a request for correction, which is extended five years from the portion of requesting a decision or revision after January 1, 2015, shall be applied (paragraph (1)); and Article 45-2(1) of the former Act prior to the enforcement of the Act (paragraph (2)).

Article 19(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201) provides that an entrepreneur shall file a return on the tax base and the amount of tax payable for each taxable period within 25 days from the end of the relevant taxable period. Thus, the statutory due date of return of the first value-added tax for the instant business establishment in 2011 is July 25, 201. The statutory due date of return of the first value-added tax for the instant business establishment is July 25, 201. The period of filing a request for correction is terminated on July 25, 2014, when three years from the statutory due date of return pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014). Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for correction against the first time value-added tax for each taxable period after the statutory due date of return expires.

3. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion on the merits

A. The illegality of the instant disposition

1) Article 81-12 of the Framework Act on National Taxes was violated by providing a notice of notice of audit results without lawfully notifying the specific grounds for the disposition.

2) The Plaintiff violated Article 16 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which prescribes the principle of taxation based on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not provide explanation and opportunity to submit books, etc., although requiring the Plaintiff to present evidence.

3) 이 사건 조사 당시 〇〇세무서장은 조사의 편의상 모든 계좌 입금액을 총매출액으로 계상한 후 이미 신고된 금액을 차감하여 매출누락액을 산출하였고, 원고는 이러한 조사 방침과 결과를 받아들여 수정신고 및 1차 부과처분에 따른 세액을 모두납부하였는데, 2년이 지나 다시 이 사건 조사 결과를 번복하고 2차 부과처분을 한것은 신의성실 원칙을 위반한 것이다.

4) The second imposition of this case after the first imposition violates the prohibition of abuse of tax investigation authority and the prohibition of double taxation.

5) Among the instant disposition, the imposition of value-added tax for the period from the first to the second period from 2009 in 2010 was conducted after the lapse of the exclusion period of five years, and thus is unlawful.

6) The Plaintiff used the instant account in the name of its employees for business convenience, not for tax evasion or concealment, and the Plaintiff’s tax declaration data are kept as they are. Thus, the Plaintiff’s tax return data does not constitute a case of underreporting the tax base and tax amount by fraud or other unlawful act. Therefore, the portion of the penalty tax for underreporting in the instant disposition is unlawful within the extent exceeding the general underreporting penalty tax. Furthermore, since the Defendant was unable to impose taxes properly at the time of the first disposition, the additional tax for underreporting in the instant disposition was incurred due to the failure of the Defendant at the time of

7) The Plaintiff’s filing of the Plaintiff’s revised return and the Defendant’s primary imposition disposition, which led to the instant investigation, do not constitute a case of underreporting the tax base and tax amount due to fraud or other unlawful act. As such, the portion of the unjustly underreporting additional tax

B. The illegality of the instant refusal disposition (referring to the rejection disposition on the claim for correction of value-added tax (including additional tax) at the second half of 2011)

Since the amount deposited in the c c c c d bank account in 2011 should be deducted from the amount omitted from the sales of the place of business of this case, the defendant's refusal disposition of this case which rejected such a request for correction is unlawful.

4. Relevant statutes;

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

5. Determination

A. Facts of recognition

1) On June 17, 2013, the Plaintiff was investigated into criminal charges related to the instant place of business on suspicion of tax evasion and stated the following as follows.

(a) Each FF Bank account in the name of Aaa and Menam bb is an account in which the sales proceeds of dancing dancing is deposited through the customer and the dancer’s obligation to provide dancing training is also deposited. Of the amount of Diplomatic Deposit in cccccc’s D Bank Account, the amount of ATM generated through a non-do lecturer in 201, and the cash or the amount of receipt is an individual financial transaction that is unrelated to the sales.

B) The difference between the amount totaled from the instant account (0 million won in 2009,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000 in 2011) and the value-added tax base return (0,000,0000,000 in 209, 2000,000,000 in 2010, 2000,000 in 2011) that was originally reported by the Plaintiff is the amount that was omitted by the Plaintiff.

C) The instant account was opened at the Plaintiff’s order, and the Plaintiff managed the account directly, and the sales was discarded each month without making any particular account books. It was sent to the certified tax accountant in charge of the instant place of business to deliver the tax invoice issued and the receipt of the purchase data among the sales, and thus, made the instant tax return. The certified tax accountant did not know of the instant account and the actual sales, the failure to issue tax invoices, or under-issuance.

2) At the time of the first disposition, the Defendant presumed the sum totaled from the instant account as the Plaintiff’s total sales. From that point of view, the Defendant issued a revised notification on the difference in the tax base of each value-added tax from the first to the second of the second of the year 2009, computed by deducting the sales initially reported by the Plaintiff, including credit card sales, and issued a revised notification on the first and second value-added tax in 201 by the same method.

3) ■■지방국세청은 〇〇세무서에 대한 종합감사 과정에서 국세청 전산망에 등록된세금 신고 관련 자료, 이 사건 조사 당시 확보한 원고 명의 계좌 및 이 사건 계좌의금융거래내역 등을 비교하여 이 사건 과세기간에 이 사건 사업장에서 발생한 신용카드 매출액(2009년 제1기 000,000,000원, 2009년 제2기 000,000,000원, 2010년제1기 000,000,000원, 2010년 제2기 000,000,000원, 2011년 제1기000,000,000원,2011년 제2기 000,000,000원)이 직접 또는 다른 계좌를 거쳐 이 사건 계좌에 입금되었는지를 조사하였으나, 그러한 입금 사실은 확인되지 아니하였다.

4) 〇〇세무서장은 2015. 8. 21. 원고에게 ■■지방국세청의 종합감사 결과에 따른경정고지임을 밝히면서 이 사건 과세기간의 각 종합소득세와 부가가치세에 대하여수입금액, 과세표준, 산출세액, 예상고지세액을 기재한 과세예고 통지를 하였다.

B. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

1) Whether the disposition notification procedure is defective

〇〇세무서장이 2015. 8. 21. 원고에게 ■■지방국세청의 감사 결과에 따라 이 사건 과세기간의 부가가치세에 관한 수입금액ㆍ과세표준 및 세액을 새로이 산출한 내역이 포함된 과세예고 통지를 하였고, 그 후 피고가 2015. 10. 1. 원고에게 2차 부과처분의 고지를 한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같다. 이로써 원고는 감사 결과 이 사건 과세기간에 발생한 이 사건 사업장의 수입금액이 누락된 사실이 발견되어 새로이 부과처분이 이루 어지리라는 사정을 알 수 있었으므로, 이에 기하여 이 사건 부과처분에 앞서 수입금액 누락액의 구체적인 산출 근거를 피고에게 확인하고 충분한 시간을 가지고 준비하여 과세전적부심사와 같은 의견청취절차를 밟아 의견을 진술하는 등으로 자신의 권익을 보호할 수 있었다. 따라서 이 사건 부과처분의 통지절차에 어떠한 절차상 하자가 있다 고 할 수 없다.

한편 구 국세기본법(2015. 12. 15. 법률 제13552호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제81조의12는 '세무공무원은 세무조사를 마쳤을 때에는 그 조사 결과를 서면으로 납세 자에게 통지하여야 한다'고 규정하고 있다. 그런데 구 국세기본법 제81조의2 제2항 제1호에 따르면, 위 규정에서의 '세무조사'란 '국세의 과세표준과 세액을 결정 또는 경정하기 위하여 질문을 하거나 해당 장부・서류 또는 그 밖의 물건을 검사・조사하거나 그 제출을 명하는 것'을 의미하는데, 이 사건에서 피고는 ■■지방국세청의 업무감사 결과에 따라 이 사건 세무조사에서 확보된 과세자료에 근거하여 2차 부과처분을 하였 을 뿐 추가로 원고나 관련인을 상대로 질문을 하거나 장부 등을 검사・조사하거나 그 제출을 명하는 등 새로이 세무조사를 한 사실이 없으므로, 구 국세기본법 제81조의 12의 위반 여부가 문제될 여지가 없다.

2) Whether the principle of underlying taxation is violated

구 국세기본법 제16조는 증거에 의한 과세의 실행을 담보하여 과세처분을 할 때에 과 세관청의 자의를 배제하고 객관적이고 합리적인 과세가 이루어질 수 있도록 함으로써 공평과세의 실현과 납세자의 재산권 보장을 도모하는 데 그 취지가 있다.이 사건 부과처분은 ■■지방국세청이 이 사건 조사 결과 확보된 자료(원고명의 계좌 및 이 사건 계좌의 금융거래내역 등)와 원고의 세금 신고 내역 등을 검토한 결과, 1차 부과처분 당시 원고의 장부에 기재되지 아니한 매출누락액을 산출하는 과정에서 확인 된 이 사건 계좌의 입금 내역에 신용카드 매출에 따른 입금액이 포함되지 아니하여 이 사건 계좌 입금액만을 기초로 이 사건 사업장의 전체 수입금액을 산출할 경우 신용카 드 매출액 상당을 누락하게 되는 오류를 확인하였고, 그에 따라 피고가 부가가치세법 제57조 제1항, 제3항에 따라 과세표준과 세액을 다시 경정한 것이므로, 이 사건 부과 처분은 객관적인 근거가 있고, 피고가 이 사건 부과처분에 앞서 원고에게 다시 장부의 제출과 소명을 요구하지 아니하였다고 하여 구 국세기본법 제16조에서 규정한 근거 과 세의 원칙을 위반하였다고 할 수 없다.

3) Whether the principle of good faith is violated

Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides for the principle of trust and good faith. In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority’s acts in tax and legal relations, the tax authority must issue a public opinion list that is subject to taxpayer trust; the tax authority’s trust in the name of the tax authority does not cause any cause attributable to the taxpayer; and the taxpayer must conduct an act that is trusted in the name of the tax authority; and the tax authority’s disposition contrary to the above opinion list violates the principle of trust and good faith, thereby infringing the taxpayer’s interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du7741, Oct. 29, 2009). The burden of asserting and certifying such requirements lies on the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9824, Mar. 31, 1992). Meanwhile, the principle of trust and good faith and protection should be applied to the tax authority’s act that is reasonable and 201.

Meanwhile, Article 57 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “If there is an error or omission in the details reported under paragraph (1) or any omission or omission in the tax base, tax amount, or refundable tax amount determined or corrected under paragraphs (1) and (2), the head of a tax office, etc. having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall immediately rectify the said error or omission.” The instant disposition is corrected by calculating the tax standard and tax amount by adding the sales omitted in order to correct the apparent error found in the first disposition and the Plaintiff’s revised return, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone does not constitute the Defendant’s public opinion that the instant disposition will not be taken again, or that the Plaintiff formed trust in this regard. Thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed a violation of the principle of trust and good faith.

4) Whether the authority to conduct tax investigations has been abused and the prohibition of duplicate taxation has been violated

A) Article 81-4 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "tax officials shall conduct a tax investigation to the minimum extent necessary to realize proper and fair taxation, and shall not abuse their authority to conduct tax investigation for any other purpose, etc." Paragraph (2) provides that "tax officials shall not conduct a tax investigation for the same items of taxation and for the same taxable period unless they fall under any of the following subparagraphs, and shall not conduct a re-investigation for the same items of taxation and for the same taxable period." However, as seen earlier, the fact that the defendant did not conduct an additional tax investigation until the disposition of this case was issued after the investigation of this case is made is that the defendant did not conduct a re-investigation prohibited against Article 81-4 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes or that the defendant abused its authority to conduct

B) In addition, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the instant disposition was conducted on the omitted sales amount not included in the tax base at the time of the first imposition or the instant revised return, and thus, there is no problem of double taxation.

5) Whether the exclusion period has expired

A) Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes other than inheritance tax and gift tax shall, in principle, be five years from the date on which the relevant national tax may be imposed, while Article 26-2(1)1 provides that "where a taxpayer evades a national tax, obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means prescribed by Presidential Decree, it shall be ten years from the date on which the national tax may be imposed. According to Article 12-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, "any fraud or other unlawful act prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes means any false entry in the book, such as preparation of a book (title 1), an act of manipulating income, profit-making, transaction, or a taxpayer's act of not preparing a book or preparing a list of total tax invoices, or making it considerably difficult to impose a tax invoice or a list of total tax invoices by fraudulent means or other unlawful means.

B) In principle, the legislative intent of Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is to promptly determine the legal relationship, and the exclusion period of the right to impose national taxes is five years, but it is difficult to expect the exercise of the right to impose national taxes because it is difficult for the tax authority to find out that there is any omission report, such as making it difficult for him/her to find out any omission report, and making it difficult for him/her to do so. Therefore, “Fraud or other unlawful acts” under Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act refers to a deceptive scheme or other active acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult for him/her to impose and collect taxes, and it does not constitute a mere failure to file a tax return under the tax law or making a false report without accompanying any other acts, but it is difficult to impose and collect taxes or make it difficult to do so in addition to cases where active concealed circumstances, such as failure to file a tax return or underreporting a tax return and intentionally failing to enter revenues or sales, etc. in the account book (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du162613.

C) The Plaintiff was subject to double-entry bookkeeping under the former Income Tax Act during the instant taxable period. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to record and manage books so that all transactions related to the business can be objectively identified, and when supplying goods in relation to the business, he/she is obligated to report the transaction amount to the head of the competent tax office (Articles 160 and 160-5 of the former Income Tax Act). Nevertheless, the Plaintiff used the instant account in the name of his/her employee or his/her family member for business purpose without reporting the instant account during the instant taxable period, and used the deposited sales amount for business purpose without reporting it in the name of his/her employee or his/her family member, omitted from the return of the value-added tax base, issued a tax invoice to him/her, did not prepare the account book, and destroyed the relevant data without delivering the relevant data to the certified tax accountant responsible for bookkeeping. In full view of these facts, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s act as above constitutes an act of concealment, such as intentionally making it difficult to impose and collect taxes or seriously difficult, and thus constitutes an act of fraud.

D) Therefore, the exclusion period for imposition of value-added tax in the instant taxable period is ten years, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not accepted, since the fact that the exclusion period for imposition has not elapsed from 10 years to 1 October 201, 2015, from the date following the filing deadline for each value-added tax from 1 to 2 years from 2009 to 2010, which is the second imposition date of value-added tax.

6) Whether the imposition of unfair under-reported additional tax is lawful

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff committed an unlawful act in relation to the return of each of the value-added taxes in the instant taxable periods. The imposition of the instant tax is legitimate to impose an unfair under-reported penalty tax pursuant to Article 47-3(2)1 (a) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, on the grounds that the omitted sales amount were calculated as a result of subtracting the sales amount equivalent to the credit card sales amount not included in the instant account from the amount of the initial tax imposition and the Plaintiff’s unlawful act at the time of the Plaintiff’s mental and physical inspection, and as such, the omitted sales amount was calculated less than the amount of the credit card sales amount. As such, the difference between the final value-added tax amount reasonably calculated (the total tax amount calculated by multiplying the legitimate tax base by the legitimate tax rate for each taxable period) and the tax amount initially reported by the Plaintiff constitutes an under-reported tax amount by unlawful act.

7) Whether the imposition of additional dues is legitimate

In the instant disposition, the Plaintiff asserts that the additional payment from the date of the notice of the decision of tax judgment should be revoked. However, the Defendant imposed an additional payment from the day following the payment deadline of each pertinent value-added tax to the date of the second disposition, and that the additional payment from the day following the date of the first disposition or the date of the revised return and payment of this case was corrected according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, and that the additional payment from the day following the date of the second disposition is not imposed until the date of the second disposition, is not included in the additional payment from the date of the second disposition to the date of the notice of the decision of tax judgment after the date of the second disposition. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected

8) Sub-determination

Therefore, the disposition of this case cannot be deemed unlawful. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

C. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant refusal disposition

In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the fact that the taxpayer’s account at a financial institution constitutes sales or revenues, and the fact that the amount deposited in the account at a financial institution is omitted from the return is in principle the burden of proving the tax requirement by the tax authority. However, the fact that the amount deposited in the account at a financial institution of the taxpayer constitutes sales or revenues can be proved by either disclosing or verifying indirect facts that could be inferred in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, and the same applies to cases where the taxpayer uses the borrowed account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du1035, Jun. 29, 2017).

In this case, the Plaintiff clearly recognized that the sum of the amounts deposited through ATM, unlike cash or other payments, out of the amounts deposited in CC account in June 17, 2011 after being investigated on June 17, 2013, (200,000,000,000) was the omitted sales (public payment) of the instant place of business, and later, the Plaintiff filed a revised return on tax base and value-added tax in addition to the tax base already reported, and the fact that the Plaintiff did not dispute this case until the second disposition is conducted is not submitted. In full view of these circumstances, the Plaintiff’s determination of the omission of sales and the revised return was made against its will and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff’s filing of the revised return was false. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount deposited in CC account in 2011 is included in the tax base at the time of the instant request for correction, and thus, the Plaintiff’s allegation that this portion of the amount would be included in the tax base at the time of the instant business.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, among the instant lawsuits, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the unjustly underreported penalty tax in the imposition disposition of value-added tax as of August 5, 2013, and the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the revocation disposition of the claim for correction of the value-added tax as of January 201, respectively, is unlawful. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on