The exclusion period of imposition of national taxes under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

○○ Head of tax office

2. On December 5, 2011, Defendant ○○○○○○ Commissioner of the National Tax Service’s disposition of notice of change in the amount of income indicated in [Attachment 1] that the Plaintiff on December 5, 201, is revoked.

3. The imposition of value-added tax on the Plaintiff on December 1, 201 by Defendant ○○○ Head of the tax office shall be revoked each disposition of imposition of value-added tax from 201 to 205, stated in the column for correction of June 1, 2015.

4. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant ○○○○○ Commissioner of the National Tax Service’s initial disposition on December 5, 201, the disposition of notification of changes in the income amount indicated in [Attachment 1] that the Plaintiff on December 5, 201 is revoked. Defendant ○○○○ Head of the National Tax Service’s initial disposition on December 1, 201, the disposition of imposition of each value-added tax from the second to second to 2005 stated in [Attachment 2] column, which the Plaintiff on December 1, 201.

(a) The relationship between the parties;

On January 27, 1981, the Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation established for the purpose of maintaining and managing ○○ Industrial Complex, promoting and developing the business of modernization of occupant enterprises pursuant to Article 31 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act. Ma○○ is a person who served as the president from March 30, 192 to August 24, 2009.

B. Criminal judgment on ○○○

1) On April 26, 2011, 201, which was charged with violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement and Breach of Trust), while holding office as the president of the Plaintiff, and was sentenced to a judgment of conviction of four years of imprisonment on September 29, 201 (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch Decision 201Gohap64). The relevant criminal facts of this case are as follows.

1. Embezzlements through the fraudulent and exaggerated appropriation of flexible coal transportation expenses;

A. Although the method of paying false flexible coal transportation expenses to ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. from January 2001 to August 2005 did not actually transport the Plaintiff’s coal smoke, a written disbursement resolution, etc., as if they were transported, even though three companies, including Slura Co., Ltd., and three companies, including Slura Co., Ltd., were not actually transported the Plaintiff’s coal smoke.

embezzlement of 1,558,617,265 won

(b) The method by which the waste gas transport cost for telegraph BB (CCC) is excessively appropriated; and

As if B had transported smoke more than that actually transported by BB from November 2001 to August 2004, a written disbursement resolution, etc. will be prepared and embezzlement of KRW 344,758,902 of the Plaintiff’s funds.

(c) A method by which an excessive amount of carbon transport for DNA is appropriated for suchD;

The expenditure resolution, etc. was prepared as if DD transported more flexible coal than that actually transported by DD from November 2001 to November 2008, and embezzlement of KRW 2,400,703,939 of the Plaintiff’s funds (hereinafter “transport expenses embezzled by ○○○ for the criminal facts described in the above A through (c)” (hereinafter “the instant processing transport expenses”).

2. Embezzlements for sales proceeds of golf membership owned by the plaintiff;

The embezzlement of KRW 66,330,000, out of the proceeds from the sale of golf membership owned by the plaintiff on March 16, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the proceeds from the sale of golf membership in this case")

3. Breach of trust through sale of the Plaintiff-owned cargo at a low price

In violation of the duty from September 2003 to December 2008, the Plaintiff sold 21 trucking cars owned by the Plaintiff to four enterprises, including the Plaintiff, at 701,501,903 won, including the Plaintiff’s water supply, thereby allowing the said enterprises to gain profit equivalent to the same amount, and causing the Plaintiff to suffer loss equivalent to the same amount (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s loss”).

2) In the Daegu High Court case 201No479, the appellate court, on April 19, 2012, changed the amount stated in paragraph (c) of the above crime to KRW 2,323,278,591 according to the prosecutor's amendment of the indictment, and sentenced ○○○ to three years of imprisonment without prison labor, without accepting the argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. In the Supreme Court Decision 2012Do5220, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the court below on August 30, 2012, on the ground that there is insufficient deliberation as to the fact that the amount of the instant breach of trust was KRW 701,501,90,03. In the case of the Daegu High Court 201No524, the remanded High Court 2012No524, Nov. 19, 2012, the court sentenced the amount of the instant crime to KRW 2,006, and remanded the appeal to 2014.

C. Circumstances of each of the dispositions of this case

1) From April 25, 2011 to November 30, 2011, Defendant ○○○○○ Commissioner conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and confirmed the processing and transportation cost of the instant case, golf membership sales proceeds, and the amount of wrongful calculation in relation to the amount of breach of trust in the instant case, and notified Defendant ○○○○ Head of the tax office of correction of corporate tax and value-added tax for each business year.

2) As a result of the tax investigation above, the head of Defendant ○○○○○ Tax Office decided to revise corporate tax by not including the processing transportation expenses in deductible expenses, the sales proceeds of the instant golf membership in gross income, etc., and revise the value-added tax by not deducting the relevant input tax amount from deductible expenses, and notified the Plaintiff of each of the corporate tax from 2001 to 2010 and the value-added tax from 2001 to 2008 as stated in the “original disposition” column, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and correction of each of the corporate tax and the value-added tax from 2001 to 2008 to December 5, 201. The Defendant ○○○○○○○○○ Tax Service decided to dispose of the instant processing transportation expenses and the sales proceeds of golf membership as bonus for the representative, and notified the Plaintiff of the change of each income amount from 2001 to 208.

3) On December 1, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an objection with the head of the tax office of ○○○○○○○○ on the disposition of imposition of each corporate tax and each value-added tax on December 1, 201; and (b) filed an objection with the head of the tax office of ○○○○○○○○ on January 31, 2012, but was dismissed on March 21, 2012; (c) filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 24, 2012; and (d) the Tax Tribunal filed a final judgment with the Tax Tribunal on April 24, 2012; (c) determined that the wrongful act committed by the Plaintiff related to the amount of breach of trust was unlawful; and (d) dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s remaining claims (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant objection procedure and tax proceeding”).

4) According to the above decision, the head of Defendant ○○○ Tax Office corrected the relevant part of the imposition disposition of each corporate tax and each value-added tax as of December 1, 201, as indicated in the [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] as of November 6, 2014, as of December 1, 2011.

5) On June 1, 2015, the Defendants reflected the amount of damages stated in Section 1-C. of the crime that was changed and confirmed to KRW 2,323,278,591 after the Daegu District Court Decision 201Gohap64 Decided June 1, 2015, the Defendant ○○○○ National Tax Service shall [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1], as indicated in the correction column of June 1, 2015.

5. The relevant part of the notice of change in income amount was corrected, and the head of the ○○○ Tax Office revised the relevant part of the disposition imposing corporate tax and value-added tax on December 1, 2011 as stated in the separate sheet 2/Attachment 2 [Attachment ], and the relevant part of the disposition imposing corporate tax and value-added tax on June 1, 201 (hereinafter Defendant ○○○ Tax Office’s notice of change in income amount on December 5, 201, "the remaining part of the notice of change in income amount" is "the notice of change in income amount of each case," and Defendant ○○○ Tax Office’s notice of change in income amount from December 1, 201 to December 205.

Each description of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 10, 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 24 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether a request for cancellation of the reduced amount of duty is legitimate.

The portion exceeding KRW 209,568,550 out of the notice of change in income amount of 2007 246,071,380 won of Defendant ○○○○ Commissioner of the National Tax Service for whom the Plaintiff seeks revocation, exceeds KRW 209,568,550 of the notice of change in income amount of KRW 604,536,360 of the income amount of 2008, the portion exceeding KRW 570,652,510 of the notice of change in income amount of KRW 570 of the second disposition of value-added tax of KRW 107,177,760 of the lawsuit against the head of Defendant ○○○○ Tax Office for which the Plaintiff seeks revocation, exceeds KRW 105,98,130 of the second disposition of value-added tax of KRW 105,893,530 of the first disposition of value-added tax of KRW 205,237,415,520 of the value-added tax for the year 2005.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. Defendant ○○○○○ Commissioner of the National Tax Service

Defendant ○○○○○ Commissioner of the National Tax Service asserts that the defendant ○○○○○○ Commissioner of the National Tax Service eligible for an administrative appeal on the notice of change in each of the instant income amount is the defendant, and that the defendant ○○○○ Head of the National Tax Service was the defendant, although there is no eligibility to be the defendant, the procedure of the previous trial was conducted by the defendant ○○○ Head of the National Tax Service as the defendant, and that the plaintiff was not subject to an administrative appeal separately by making the defendant ○○ Commissioner of the National Tax Service as the defendant before filing the instant lawsuit. Thus, the part seeking revocation of each of

B. Determination

Although the disposition office of notice of change in each of the income amounts of this case is Defendant ○○○○ Commissioner, the Plaintiff filed an objection and filed a request for a trial against the notice of change in each of the income amounts of this case by designating the respondent as Defendant ○○○ Director of the Tax Office.

However, as the principle of pre-trial administrative appeals provides an administrative agency with an opportunity to reconsider and correct itself in light of the unique characteristics and expertise of administrative acts, barring special provisions in law, it is not required to require citizens to take excessively strict procedures beyond the required scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu254, Sept. 9, 1986; 95Nu6328, Jul. 30, 1996). Even if the pre-trial procedure is completed by stages, barring special circumstances, such as where it is impossible to correct the requirements, such errors may be deemed as cured and go through legitimate pre-trial proceedings, unless there are defects in the pre-trial proceedings, such as the degree of objection period, unless there is a defect in the requirements for the pre-trial procedure, and such legal principles apply to cases where the pre-trial procedure was completed by mistake in the pre-trial procedure without the application of the pre-trial procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu528, Sept. 9, 1986).

The following circumstances revealed by the above facts were revealed: ① Defendant ○○○○○○ Tax Office (hereinafter “○○○○○○ Tax Office”) was under the procedure of the preceding trial on the notice of changes in the amount of each of the instant income; ② Defendant ○○○○○ Tax Office was an administrative agency affiliated with Defendant ○○○○○○○ Tax Office; ② Defendant ○○○○○○ Tax Office also reviewed each of the instant imposition of value-added tax, imposition of corporate tax, and imposition of corporate tax on the instant case on the grounds of embezzlement, etc. of the instant disposition on each of the instant income change, which served as the grounds for the disposition of notice of changes in the amount of income; and ③ Defendant ○○○○ Tax Office did not raise any objection against the disposition of the notice of changes in the amount of income in the instant case; ③ Defendant ○○○ Tax Office did not seek for the revocation of each of the instant lawsuit during the previous trial period, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant procedure was without merit.

4. Whether each of the dispositions in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Notice of changes in each of the instant income amounts

○○○, a non-profit corporation, is not a person in a de facto managerial position that actually controls the Plaintiff, but merely is a person who was in a position to manage and supervise the execution affairs of the matters resolved by the general meeting of members and the board of directors on behalf of the Plaintiff, and thus, it is difficult to see that the intent of ○○○ is identical to the Plaintiff’s intent. The act of embezzlement of ○○○ causes enormous property loss to the Plaintiff and its members, and it is difficult to see that ○○ and the Plaintiff’s economic interest are equal. The Plaintiff dismissed ○○ on August 24, 2009 and filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office on September 10, 2010. In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for the embezzlement, and the completion of the enforcement, it cannot be deemed that the amount embezzled by ○○ was out of the company, and thus, each of the instant reports on changes in the amount of income under different premise is

2) The imposition of each of the imposition values of the instant case

Although the Plaintiff obtained input tax deduction through a false tax invoice, there was no awareness that the issuance of a false tax invoice would result in the reduction of national tax revenue by evading the liability for the payment of value-added tax on the tax invoice. Therefore, the period for exclusion of value-added tax under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall not apply 10 years. The imposition of each of the value-added tax in this case was made on December 1, 201, five years after the beginning date of each period for exclusion of imposition of value-added tax. Thus, each of

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Whether each of the instant reports on changes in income amount is legitimate

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 11, evidence No. 13 through 28, evidence No. 25 through 36, and the purport of the whole pleadings as mentioned above.

A) Operation and organization of the Plaintiff

(1) On January 27, 1981, the Plaintiff was established pursuant to Article 31 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act, and was entrusted with the management of ○○○ Industrial Complex from ○○ Metropolitan City, which is an administrative agency authorized to establish the industrial complex. The Plaintiff is composed of 120 occupant enterprises’ membership fees and usage fees. The Plaintiff is operated as 120 enterprises’ major infrastructure, and the Plaintiff is composed of a heat consolidated power plant equipped with steam production facilities with a size of 665 tons per hour, which produces steam and electricity provided to moving-in enterprises, and a joint wastewater treatment plant capable of treating wastewater daily 105,000 cubic meters for the wastewater treatment discharged from the Corporation. The organization consists of the power generation headquarters, the water quality headquarters, and the management headquarters.

(2) A person who is designated to move into the ○○ Industrial Complex automatically becomes a member of the Plaintiff and has equal rights to the use, etc. of common facilities against the Plaintiff, and has one voting right, suffrage, and eligibility for election. The Plaintiff’s member is obligated to pay the contributions, such as expenses for the operation of the Corporation, management expenses, and usage charges of common facilities (Articles 9 through 12 of the Plaintiff’s Articles of Incorporation).

(3) The Plaintiff shall be divided into non-standing officers and standing directors. Non-standing officers shall consist of one chief director, one vice chief director, one director and one auditor, and the general meeting among the representatives or officers of occupant enterprises shall be elected by the board of directors on the recommendation of the chief director from among the representatives of occupant enterprises, and the standing directors shall be elected by the board of directors on the recommendation of the chief director from among the representatives of occupant enterprises (Articles of Incorporation 17 and 18). The chief director shall take charge of the affairs of the Corporation on behalf of the Corporation, and matters concerning the affairs of the Corporation shall be deliberated and decided by the board of directors (Article 21 of the Articles of Incorporation). The Plaintiff’s officers shall not be paid with honorary offices

B) Status of ○○○ and the background of the embezzlement

(1) Since assuming office as the president of the Plaintiff on March 30, 1992, the ○○○ continued to serve as the president on August 24, 2009, the environmental pollution caused by wastes has emerged as a social problem since the 1991 Huol emission incident, and thus, in order to control the affairs pertaining to the waste disposal center of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s affairs, he/she had the auditor take charge of the waste disposal affairs at the audit room. Kim○○○○○○ around that time, under the direction of the Ha○○○○○○○○○○ from around September 2009, took charge of the operation of the freight vehicles belonging to the Corporation, and the management and supervision of the freight vehicles belonging to the Corporation.

(2) Even though four companies, such as ○○○, etc., engaged in the transportation business from January 2001 to December 2008, 2008, Hab○○○, etc., did not transport flexible coal, he/she prepared an expenditure resolution, corporate capital, and an expenditure resolution, etc., which stated as if transported, which included excessive flexible coal transported by Sampo, etc., with the head of the power generation headquarters, the head of the planning and administration department, etc., and had the head of the planning and administration department, etc. approve it, and voluntarily withdrawn it and consumed it for personal purposes. On March 16, 2007, the sales proceeds of the instant golf course were used for their own purchase costs, etc.

C) Plaintiff’s measure

(1) On August 24, 2009, the Secretary General, etc. of the ○○ Joint Organization filed a criminal charge of embezzlement, etc. On the same day, the Plaintiff dismissed ○○○ from the office of president. On September 2010, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint with the ○○ District Prosecutors’ Office, filed a criminal trial proceeding against ○○○○○.

(2) The Plaintiff was fully compensated for the amount of damages that became final and conclusive in the relevant criminal and civil judgment by proceeding with the procedure of preserving the claim and the lawsuit claiming for damages for the recovery of the embezzlement by ○○○○ as follows.

� 2010. 11. 15. 대구지방법원 2010카단10851 부동산가압류 결정으로 함○○에대한 손해배상채권을 청구채권으로 하여, 함○○ 소유의 부동산 가압류.

�� 2011. 9. 29. 형사 제1심 판결 선고 후, 2011. 10. 4. 이 사건 가공운송비, 골프회원권 판매대금 등을 회계상 미수금으로 계상하고, 2011. 11. 3. 함○○에게 위 판결에서 인정된 원고의 손해액을 배상하라는 내용의 내용증명 우편 발송.

�� 2012. 4. 19. 형사 항소심 판결 선고 후, 2012. 5. 2. 및 2012. 5. 3. 함○○에대하여 위 판결에서 인정된 원고의 손해액에 대한 손해배상청구소송을 제기하여, 2013. 1. 30. 이 사건 골프회원권 판매대금에 대한 손해배상청구 승소 판결을 받고 (대구지방법원 서부지원 2012가단12829 판결, 함○○의 항소는 2013. 12. 4. 대구지방법원 2013나2755호로 기각되었고, 상고는 2014. 4. 10. 대법원 2014다1195호로 기각되어, 2014. 4. 14. 확정), 이 사건 가공운송비 등에 대한 손해배상을 청구하여 2014. 1. 28. 승소 판결을 받음

(Seoul District Court 2012 Gohap4712, 4729, and Hab○○’s appeal is dismissed on February 3, 2015, the Daegu High Court 2014Na1080, and 1097, and finally decided February 24, 2015).

�� 위 각 판결을 집행권원으로 하여, 함○○ 소유의 부동산에 대하여 2014. 2. 10.경부터 2014. 3. 27.까지 각 부동산 강제경매절차개시결정(대구지방법원 서부지원 2014타경1260, 대구지방법원 2014타경2570, 2014타경2553)을 받았고, 2015. 3.경까지 위 각 판결에서 인정된 손해배상금을 모두 수령하여 집행 완료.

2) Determination

A) As the representative director, etc., who is the actual manager of a corporation, has not been conducted on the basis of the early recovery of difficulties, barring special circumstances, the act of using the corporation's funds constitutes an outflow from the company as its own expense. As to special circumstances, which cannot be viewed as not premised on the recovery from the utilization point of view, it shall be determined individually and specifically by taking into account all the circumstances such as the actual status within the representative director, etc., the subject of the embezzlement, the degree of control over the corporation, the circumstances leading to the embezzlement, and whether it is difficult to see that the representative director, etc.'s intent is the same as the corporation's intent or that the corporate economic interest is in fact consistent with the representative director, etc., and such special circumstances must be proved by the alleged corporation (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du2323, Nov. 13, 2008). Meanwhile, if a person who is an employee of a corporation acquires the company's damages claim after the omission of the company's business, such as embezzlement of the corporation's funds for personal interest regardless of the corporation's business.

B) From March 30, 1992 to August 24, 2009, ○○ served as the president of the Plaintiff for about 17 years from March 30, 1992, and the embezzlement of processing and transportation costs of this case took place repeatedly over a long period from January 2001 to December 2008, and ○○○ used part of the embezzled money as the advertising fund for the Plaintiff’s occupant enterprise and its officers as above. The above evidence revealed that ○○ had already been investigated by the prosecution on the charge of embezzlement against ○○ around 2005, even though the investigation was conducted on the charge of embezzlement, ○○ maintained the position of the Plaintiff’s president, and it should be recognized that the Plaintiff filed a complaint against ○○○ after the lapse of one year from the retirement of ○○○.

However, in full view of all the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, it is difficult to view that the processing and transportation costs, etc. of this case are not immediately premised on recovery at the time of ○○’s embezzlement, and the assets equivalent to the embezzlement amount were out of the company.

① Although ○○○ does not impose restrictions on the reappointment of the articles of incorporation during the period in which he/she served as the chief director, the chief director is elected at a general meeting and his/her term of office is three years, and even if he/she is the chief director, he/she is merely one voting right, voting right, and eligibility for election as well as other members. In comparison with the control that a corporation may have with respect to a corporation, the degree of control over the Plaintiff of ○○○○ in comparison with the control that a corporation may have with respect to a corporation, cannot be said to the extent that the degree of control over the Plaintiff of ○○○○ may be the same as the Plaintiff’s intent. The Plaintiff’

② The Plaintiff’s heat co-electric power plant is designed to jointly produce steam and electricity necessary for textile sponsing businesses and supply them to occupant enterprises. If ○○○ receives and embezzled the difference by appropriating the transport cost, etc., which is the fuel, in a false and exaggerated manner, the Plaintiff’s member companies are supplied with steam and electricity at an increased price, and thus, the economic interest between the Plaintiff and ○○○ does not coincide.

③ Even if ○○○ embezzled the instant processing transport cost, etc., the Plaintiff has the damage claim against ○○○○, and the said damage claim does not run short-term extinctive prescription until the Plaintiff becomes aware of the existence of the damage claim to the extent that the newly elected president, etc. is able to legitimately exercise the Plaintiff’s interest. Considering that ○○○ has a certain term of office and is in direct possession only after the general meeting is elected, the Plaintiff’s damage claim against ○○○ is identical to the Plaintiff’s damage claim and the substance of the damage claim against

④ The Plaintiff’s embezzlement of the instant processed transportation expense, etc. was revealed, and then dismissed from the president and appointed a new president. On September 2010, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the prosecution on September 2010 through the internal investigation process with respect to ○○○○○○○, which was then taken measures to preserve the damage claim for the property of ○○○○○, and collected all the amount of embezzlement of ○○○○ through the process of criminal judgment. Although the Plaintiff’s dismissal and accusation with respect to ○○○○○○○○ was somewhat delayed, such circumstance alone does not constitute a certain period of time to investigate and confirm the details of ○○○○’s embezzlement, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff implieded the Plaintiff’s embezzlement of ○○○○○○ or renounced the damage claim. The Plaintiff’s expression of intention in a criminal trial proceeding with respect to ○○○○○ is a separate issue that is in the course of exercising the damage claim.

The plaintiff's assertion that ○○ was not an outflow from the company even though she embezzled the processing and transportation costs of this case, is justified, and each of the notice of change in the income amount of this case is unlawful.

D. Whether each disposition of value-added tax of this case is legitimate

Article 26-2 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that, in principle, the exclusion period of imposition of national taxes other than inheritance tax and gift tax shall be five years from the date on which the relevant national tax may be imposed, and that, in cases where a taxpayer evades, receives a refund or deduction due to a fraudulent or other unlawful act, it shall be ten years from the date on which the relevant national tax may be imposed. In such cases, where a taxpayer receives a deduction or refund of an input tax by a false tax invoice, the exclusion period of imposition for ten years shall apply to cases where a taxpayer evades, receives a refund or deduction of an input tax by fraudulent or other unlawful act as provided in Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. In addition to recognizing that a taxpayer is entitled to a deduction or refund of an input tax amount by a false tax invoice, the taxpayer shall be deemed to have received a deduction or refund of an input tax amount by filing a return or payment of a tax amount of value-added tax except for the output tax under a false tax invoice, or by filing a request for correction on the whole amount of a tax invoice.

According to each of the above evidence, ○○○○○○○, BB, and DD companies issued a false tax invoice stating the processing transportation cost of this case, and the above companies paid the amount equivalent to 10% of the processing transportation cost of this case under the pretext of value added tax to be paid by the tax authorities. Accordingly, Defendant ○○○○○ Tax Office can recognize the fact that the processing transportation cost of this case was deducted from the total amount of the processing transportation cost of this case less the amount paid to the above companies as value added tax from the input tax amount, and that each of the value added tax of this case was imposed (the partial entry of 37 evidence against this is written, that the receipt of the processing transportation cost tax invoice between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. may not have been subject to 10% of the direct processing transportation cost, in light of the fact that ○○○○, a criminal judgment (Evidence No. 12) on the ○○○ Co., Ltd., and that there is no credibility in taxation by the Defendant).

According to the above facts, ○○○ issued a false tax invoice from the shipping company for the purpose of embezzlement of the processing transportation costs of this case, and deducted the relevant input tax amount from the head of Defendant ○○○○ Tax Office. However, on the premise that the shipping company would pay the output tax amount related to the false tax invoice to the tax authority, it is recognized that the shipping company paid the amount equivalent to the value-added tax on the processing transportation costs of this case to the shipping company. As such, the shipping company reported and paid the tax base and tax amount of value-added tax excluding the output tax on the relevant tax invoice, or reported and paid the entire output tax amount on the relevant tax invoice, and subsequently requested correction, thereby evading the liability to pay value-added tax on the tax invoice, thereby resulting in a decrease in the

In conclusion, the imposition of each value-added tax of this case is difficult. The imposition of each of the value-added tax of this case is specified in [Attachment 2].

(1) If five years have elapsed from the initial date of the exclusion period, it was found that the calendar obvious was made on December 1, 2011.

Therefore, it is invalid and invalid, and seek confirmation of invalidity of each disposition of imposition of value-added tax in this case.

As it is also permitted to seek revocation, the revocation of the imposition of each value-added tax of this case is also allowed.

The plaintiff's assertion seeking is with merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits against Defendant ○○○○ Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the part exceeding KRW 209,56,568,550 of the notice of change in income amount of KRW 246,071,380 of the year 2007, the part exceeding KRW 604,536,536,360 of the income amount of 208, the part exceeding KRW 570,652,510 of the notice of change in income amount of KRW 570 of the second disposition of value-added tax of KRW 107,17,760 of the second disposition of KRW 105,97,98,130 of the second disposition of value-added tax of KRW 42,893,530 of the first disposition of value-added tax of KRW 20,237,530 of the year 205, the part exceeding KRW 37,415,520 of the value-added tax of KRW 200 of the plaintiff is dismissed.

(1) The former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8831 of Dec. 31, 2007)

Article 67 (Disposition of Income)

Reports on the tax base of corporate tax on the income for each business year under the provisions of Article 60 or Article 66 or

In determining or revising the corporate tax base under Article 69, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall revert thereto.

A person, etc. shall be disposed of as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company and internal reserve, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(1) The former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619, Feb. 22, 2008)

§ 106. Disposal of income

(1) The amount included in gross income pursuant to Article 67 of the Act shall be disposed of pursuant to the provisions of the following subparagraphs:

The same shall also apply to national corporations and non-profit foreign corporations.

1. Where it is obvious that the amount included in gross income has leaked out of the company, according to the person to whom it reverts:

Dividends, bonuses from the disposition of profits, other income, and other outflow from the company: Provided, That where the ownership is unclear, it shall be included;

The representative (the officer who is not a minority shareholder under Article 87 (2) and the officer who is not a minority shareholder under paragraph (4) of the same Article.

The total number of outstanding stocks or the total amount of investment of the corporation concerned after summing up the stocks owned by persons with special relationship.

Where an executive is holding not less than 30/100 and has de facto control over the management of a corporation.

corporation under the provisions of Article 46 (12) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

Where the liabilities are exempted, there is a separate representative of the relevant corporation from among the stockholders, etc.

If a corporation reports, the reporter shall be the representative, and if there are two or more representatives, the de facto representative.

It shall be deemed reverted to the winner; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(a) Where the person of accrual is a stockholder (not including stockholders who are officers or employees), the dividends of the person of accrual;

(b) If the person to whom it belongs is an officer or employee, the bonus to the person to whom it reverts;

(c) Other outflow from the company, if the person to whom it belongs is a corporation or an individual operating the business: Provided, That the dividend profit;

Income or residence of a domestic corporation or a domestic business place of a foreign corporation under the provisions of Article 94 of the Act for each business year

Composition of the business income of the main owner or the non-resident's domestic business place under Article 135 of the Income Tax Act;

only in the case.

(d) Other income of the person to whom it reverts, in case where the person to whom it reverts is the person.

2. Where the amount included in gross income has not leaked out of the company, it shall be deemed internal reserves;

【National Tax Basic Act

Article 56 (Relation with Other Acts)

(1) The Administrative Appeals Act shall not apply to any disposition prescribed in Article 55: Provided, That the request for examination or for examination shall not be applied.

Articles 15, 16, 20 through 22, 29, and 36 of the Administrative Appeals Act shall apply to any request for adjudgment.

Paragraph (1), Articles 39, 40, 42, and 51 shall apply mutatis mutandis, and in such cases, the Committee shall be a National Tax Examination Committee, and taxes.

An administrative patent judge meeting or joint session meeting shall be deemed to be an administrative patent judge meeting.

(2) The main sentence of Article 18 (1), (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act shall apply to any administrative litigation against any illegal disposition prescribed in Article 55.

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a request for examination or adjudgment under this Act and a decision thereon shall be filed without going through the determination thereof.

- 21 -

subsection (b) of this section.

(3) Notwithstanding Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the administrative litigation under paragraph (2) shall be a decision on a request for examination or adjudgment.

shall be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of definition: Provided, That a determination under Article 65 (2) or 81

If the decision is not notified during the fixed period, the date the decision period expires even before the decision is notified.

an administrative suit may be filed.

(4) Where a request for examination under Article 55 (5) 3 is made, it shall be caused as a result of a request for examination or adjudgment.

paragraph (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis to such reports.

(5) The period under paragraph (3) shall be invariable.

Article 61 (Period of Request)

(1) A request for evaluation shall be filed within 90 days from the date the relevant disposition is known (when a disposition notice is received, the date of its receipt).

section 103.

(2) Where a request for examination after filing an objection, it shall be filed within 90 days from the date a decision on the objection is notified.

Provided, That where the decision is not notified within the period for decision prescribed in the latter part of Article 66 (6), the decision shall be made.

Even before the decision is notified, the request for examination may be made after the period for decision expires.

Article 63 (Supplement or Correction of Request Form)

(1) The Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall refer to persons who are not in conformity with this Act or tax-related Acts and may correct the details or procedures

If determined, a request for correction may be made within a fixed period not exceeding 20 days: Provided, That where matters to be corrected are insignificant, it shall be made.

may be amended ex officio.

(2) Upon receipt of a request under paragraph (1), the applicant shall appear before the National Tax Service and make an oral statement of the matters to be corrected and national taxes.

A public official belonging to the agency may correct by affixing a seal in writing recorded by him/her.

(3) The period for correction under paragraph (1) shall not be included in the period for request for examination.

Article 68 (Period of Request)

(1) Any request for adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days after the relevant disposition is known (when a notice of disposition is received, the date of its receipt).

section 103.

(2) Article 61 (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the period for request in cases of request after filing an objection.

Article 81 (Mutatis Mutandis Application of Provisions Governing Requests for Examination)

Articles 61 (3) and (4), 63, and 65 (The same as a request for examination and a request for judgment under paragraph (1) 1)

Article 65-2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where the day has been filed) and Article 65-2. In such cases, "20 days" or less under Article 63 (1) shall apply mutatis mutandis.

The ‘compact' is regarded as ‘reasonable period'.

(1) The former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006)

Article 26-2 (Period for Excluding Assessment of National Tax)

(1) No national tax may be imposed after the period prescribed in the following subparagraphs expires: Provided, That this shall not apply to the avoidance of double taxation:

Where the mutual agreement procedures are in progress under a treaty concluded for the purpose of this Treaty (hereinafter referred to as the “tax treaty”).

Article 25 of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act shall apply.

1. If a taxpayer evades any national tax, or is refunded or deducted by a deceitful or other unlawful act, the parts of the national tax;

for a period of 10 years from the date such

2. If the taxpayer fails to file a written tax base return within the legal return term, the national tax may be assessed;

7 years from the date of incorporation

- 22

3. If it does not fall under subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, for five years from the day on which the national tax is assessable; and