2. On July 2, 2001, the part exceeding KRW 172,700 of the imposition disposition of global income tax of KRW 198,582,814 against the Plaintiff for the year 197 and the part exceeding KRW 1,343,161 of the imposition disposition of global income tax of KRW 68,684,020 for the year 198 shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be twenty minutes, one of which shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the other shall be borne by the defendant.

Each disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 198,582,814, and global income tax of KRW 68,684,020 for the year 1998, imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on July 2, 2001, shall be revoked.

A. In filing a report on corporate tax, etc. in 197 and 1998, the East Electronic Parts Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dong Electronic Parts”) paid 49,730,000 won (including value-added tax, 549,703,000 won) for each contract for construction of a new construction of 1,70 square meters of a factory building located in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, 723-11, a factory building located in Gyeonggi-do, 1997, and reported and paid 149,358,000 won (including value-added tax, 164,293,800 won) for construction work in 197, each of the above amounts was included in deductible expenses, and reported and paid the tax base amount and tax amount for each business year in 197 and 198.

B. Upon delegation from the Seoul regional tax office to December 16, 200, the defendant issued a special tax investigation on the dong Electronic Parts from November 13, 200 to December 16, 200, and notified the head of the Suwon District Tax Office of the result if dong Electronic Parts received a tax invoice corresponding to each of the above money from dong Electronic Parts without real transaction and included in deductible expenses, and the head of the Suwon Tax Office notified the head of the Suwon District Tax Office of the result. On February 23, 2001, 197, 370,613,000 won in 197, 1997, excluding the money actually paid for the construction of the above factory building and recognized as deductible expenses, and 151,767,80 won in 198, excluding the money recognized as deductible expenses.

C. After being notified by the head of Suwon Tax Office of the aforementioned taxation data, the Defendant: (a) included KRW 370,613,00 in the amount of the recognized bonus in the year 197 as well as KRW 35,60,04 in the Plaintiff’s global income; (b) included in the Plaintiff’s global income the amount of KRW 41,681,420 in global income tax for the year 1997; and (c) included the amount of KRW 151,767,80 in the amount of the recognized bonus in the year 1998 as well as KRW 1,126,519 in the real estate income for the year 198 as well as the amount of KRW 68,684,020 in global income tax for the year 198 as well as the amount of the tax payment notice to the Plaintiff before September 7, 201.

D. Meanwhile, the global income tax for the plaintiff for the year 197 includes income tax of 431,750,000 won, which was recognized by the head of the Geumcheon Tax Office as being the representative director, with respect to the income earned from the fixed industry, which the plaintiff served as the representative director. However, the tax office’s objection was accepted against the head of the Geumcheon Tax Office, and the above recognition contribution was revoked on August 23, 2001. Accordingly, the decision of correction was made to reduce the amount of income tax on the recognized contribution related to the fixed industry among the global income tax for the year 197, the defendant decided to reduce the amount of income tax on the 198,582,814 won for the plaintiff for the global income tax for the year 197 (hereinafter the above imposition disposition of income tax for the year 197 and the year 1998).

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5, 9, 11, Eul 1 through 8 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's main defense and judgment on this issue

(a) Basic facts;

(1) On April 30, 2001, the Plaintiff, the representative director of the same electronic component, filed an objection with the head of the Suwon Tax Office upon the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the year 1997 and 1998, but was dismissed by the head of the Suwon Tax Office on June 17, 2001.

(2) Accordingly, on September 7, 2001, the Plaintiff submitted a written request for examination to the National Tax Service via the Suwon Tax Office (the date of the request is indicated on September 10, 2001 but the date of receipt is September 7, 2001), and on the date of receipt of the notice of disposition “the name” in the “name” column of the “applicant” in the written request for examination, the “name” column of the “name” was written in the “name” column: the “name of the representative,” the “trade name,” and the “name: Corporate Tax: Corporate Tax: Corporate Tax................, on July 2, 2001, respectively, the written request for review was written in the written request for review, and the tax invoice delivered from Matoton was not a processed tax invoice, and thus, the revocation of the disposition was unlawful.

(3) On November 9, 2001, the National Tax Service rendered a decision of dismissal on the ground that the above tax invoice received by the Plaintiff was justifiable and that the disposition of imposition and recognition of each corporate tax in 1997 and 1998 was justifiable. Around that time, the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the above disposition of imposition of global income tax on February 6, 2002 by the National Tax Service.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap 8, Gap 19, Eul 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Details of the defense of this case

The defendant filed the lawsuit of this case against the defendant on February 6, 2002 without undergoing an examination or a request for trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed without undergoing a necessary pre-trial procedure. The lawsuit of this case is asserted to be unlawful as it was filed without undergoing a necessary pre-trial procedure.

C. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

D. Determination

Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes requires an administrative appeal, such as a request for review, prior to filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition. The purport of Article 55 is to provide a disposition authority with an opportunity for inventory and correction on its own, and to impose a higher administrative authority with an opportunity for correction based on supervisory authority, and to reduce the burden on the court by requiring a higher administrative agency to take measures for mass and repetitive tax disputes and settle the dispute in advance. Thus, whether a taxpayer lawfully satisfies the requirements for administrative appeals should be determined by considering the purport of establishing the aforementioned system. Thus, it is reasonable to recognize that a disposition for review is made based on Article 32 of the Corporate Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5581, Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970, Dec. 31, 1998; Presidential Decree No. 19650, Dec. 15, 1997).

According to the above recognition, the plaintiff filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service for the examination of the above corporate tax and each of the above recognized dispositions on the ground that the tax invoice delivered to the National Tax Service on the status of a natural person holding the position of the representative director at the position of the representative director at the position of the corporation's electronic organization and the above recognized dispositions on the ground that the tax invoice was not a false tax invoice, and the National Tax Service also deliberated and decided on the propriety of the approved disposition as well as corporate tax, as long as the plaintiff stated the name column of the applicant column in the request for examination as the representative director, but the name of the applicant column is not the same electronic component, and the trade name column shall be called as the "Dong B/S" on the date of receipt of the notice of disposition, and the date of receipt of corporate tax and global income tax notice shall be stated on the date of receipt of the notice of disposition, and the tax invoice delivered to the National Tax Service as well as the corporate tax and the income tax imposed on the plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance should be deemed to have been dismissed as a legitimate judgment of the first instance.

3. Appropriateness of imposition of each income tax of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the imposition of each income tax of this case should be revoked because it is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) First of all, since the tax invoice received from the dong Electronic Parts is not a false tax invoice, the defendant's disposal of the amount equivalent to the tax invoice is illegal, and the defendant's disposal of the amount equivalent to the tax invoice is illegal, and even if not, the above disposal amount is not actually accrued to the plaintiff, and since the fire occurred in the factory of the dong Electronic Parts due to the electric short circuit on January 27, 200, and all account books and relevant evidence were destroyed due to the occurrence of a fire in the factory of the dong Electronic Parts, the defendant shall make other dispositions of outflow from the company pursuant to Article 32 of the Act, the proviso of Article 94-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 93 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and therefore,

(2) Next, although Article 61 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6781 of Dec. 18, 2002) which provides for the sum of property income between husband and wife loses its effect as a decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court, the Defendant’s application of the provision to the sum of the interest income or the real estate income of the e-mail, which is the Plaintiff’s wife, to the Plaintiff’

(b) Markets:

(1) The portion that included each recognized bonus amount in the Plaintiff’s global income tax base

First of all, there is a certificate of the plaintiff's submission that the above 10th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 1997 197 198 4th 1997 4th 1997 4th 49,00 49,000 149,000 14th 1998 4th 1997 9th 197 9th 197 9th 197 9th 197 9th 197 9th 197 9th 197 9th 197 9th 197 9th 197 1th 196th 197 9th 197 9th 197 1th 196th 12 3th 196th 222 3th 19th 2 196th 3th 2 2 22.

If so, it is deemed that the above tax invoice received as a e-mail case is a false tax invoice without a real transaction, and thus, the tax invoice is deemed as a false tax invoice with a substantial amount of the tax invoice as a deductible expense, and each of the above recognized contribution disposition is a disposition against the plaintiff as a deductible expense, and each of the above recognized contribution disposition amount is included in the tax base for global income tax of the plaintiff is unlawful. Therefore, it is not necessary to review the different issues

(2) The part that included the Plaintiff’s property income, etc. in the Plaintiff’s global income tax base

The Constitutional Court en banc Order 2001Hun-Ba82, Aug. 29, 2002, declared that the discrimination against the married couple under Article 61 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6781, Dec. 18, 2002) which provides for the sum of property assets between married couple violates the Constitution. The effect of the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality is not limited to the case where the Constitutional Court made a proposal for adjudication on the unconstitutionality of the same kind before the decision of unconstitutionality is made, or where the court made a request for adjudication on the unconstitutionality of the same kind before the decision of unconstitutionality, but it did not make a separate request for adjudication on the unconstitutionality of the same kind, but the case where the law or the provision of the law remains in existence as the premise of judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da5432, Feb. 25, 200).

(c) Justifiable tax amount;

Therefore, in calculating the global income tax for the year 197, the Plaintiff’s global income tax amount of KRW 422,013,04 which the Defendant recognized as global income (=370,613,00 won for the year 197 + the Plaintiff’s interest income or real estate income for the year 35,60,044 won + the amount recognized as 370,613,000 won for the year 197, and the Plaintiff’s interest or real estate income for the year 35,60,04 won for the year 197, the amount calculated as 15,80,000 won for the Plaintiff’s global income for 197, 97, 196, 97, 196, 198, 196, 196, 197, 196, 297, 196, 197, 296, 197, 196, 197, 7, 197, 197, 19

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part exceeding KRW 172,70 of the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 198,582,814 against the plaintiff in 197 and the part exceeding KRW 1,343,161 of the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 68,684,020 in 198 shall be revoked, respectively, as it is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is so unfair, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting part of the plaintiff's appeal.

[Attachment Form 1]

Judges Hong Sung-hee (Presiding Judge)