법인세등부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to the instant case is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s new argument in the trial under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, the same shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D paid KRW 1,630,00,00 as provisional payment to the Plaintiff in 2002. However, there was an implied agreement between the Plaintiff and D to offset the said provisional payment against the construction price at issue, and thus, the amount equivalent to KRW 1,630,00,000 should be excluded from the tax base for calculating the recognized interest and the interest paid.
B. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 13, D withdraws KRW 1,630,00,000 from his own account on June 3, 2002 to cash and deposited the same amount into the plaintiff's housing bank account on the same day. The plaintiff's account book contains "temporary receipt" as to the above amount.
However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the existence of the above money and the set-off were not raised until the tax judgment and the first instance court, and that the evidence related thereto was submitted later, asserting that it was the first instance trial. The Plaintiff mentioned above at the time of undergoing a tax investigation, but at the time, argued that the investigator did not submit the data, stating that the portion of the construction cost was not subject to taxation (the third page of the reference document referred to as June 25, 2015), but in light of the fact that the Plaintiff raised a taxation disposition on the issues after the tax investigation and the instant lawsuit, it is difficult to obtain such assertion, and that the issue of the construction cost was not set-off against the Plaintiff’s customer director (Evidence A6).