2. The plaintiff's appeal and the court of appeal are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Defendant’s assertion is unlawful since the instant lawsuit was filed with the lapse of the filing period.

B. Determination

1) In the case of a taxation disposition under tax-related Acts, it shall undergo an adjudication by the Tax Tribunal, and if it fails to do so, an administrative litigation shall not be instituted, and the administrative litigation shall be instituted within 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the decision of adjudication (see Article 56 of the Framework Act

The re-examination decision, which is conducted in practice as a type of the decision on the objection, takes the form of re-examination of the matters pointed out in the relevant decision on the whole or part of a single taxable unit, and requiring the disposition agency to correct the tax base and tax amount or to maintain the initial disposition according to the result. Accordingly, only after receiving the notification of the subsequent disposition following the re-examination decision, the subject and scope of the objection can be specified in the next stage litigation procedure. In addition, considering the form and purport of the re-examination decision, and the unique nature of tax and legal relationship with autonomous administrative control and complicated and professional nature of the administrative appeals system, the re-examination decision is deemed to be a modified decision with the intent of the disposition agency to take part of the subsequent disposition as part of the decision on the objection, etc. As such, the re-examination decision becomes effective as a decision on the objection by supplementing the contents of the subsequent disposition by the disposition of the disposition, and it is reasonable to determine that the period of the request for re-examination or the period of the subsequent disposition of the administrative litigation is 2501.

"2) In full view of the purport of each argument stated in Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 12-1 and 12-2, the plaintiff filed an appeal as to each disposition stated in the purport of the claim on March 21, 2011. The Tax Tribunal re-examines part of the claim for non-taxable expenses for the business year on September 30, 201, and revises the tax base and tax amount according to the result of the re-audit, and the plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed (hereinafter referred to as "the decision of this case"). ② The Tax Tribunal dispatched the decision of this case to OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, and ③ the registration number of this case to 20 years after it received notice of the change in the amount of income for the business year on September 30, 201, and the period for which the plaintiff received notice of re-audit on the 20 years period for 20 years after it received notice of re-audit.

C. Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case pertaining to the imposition of value-added tax and additional tax for the business year 2008, and the claim for cancellation of the disposition of notice of change of income amount belonging to the business year 2007, which was filed on February 3, 2012, which was 90 days from October 5, 201, is apparent. As such, this part of the lawsuit is inappropriate for the lapse of the filing period, and there is no evidence to support that the lawsuit on the remaining part (the part pertaining to the claim for cancellation of the disposition of change of income amount belonging to the business year 2008 and the claim for cancellation of the disposition of change of income amount) was filed after the lapse of the filing period. Thus,

2. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a company established on January 16, 199 and engaged in steel structure, facility production and installation business, and civil engineering work. The defendant conducted an investigation of the tax offense against the plaintiff around July 2010, and conducted an investigation of the tax offense against the plaintiff, and thus, it is processed expenses by the OO members appropriated for expenses for 208 business years, and omitted a sales report on the OO members received from D, and on August 4, 2010, the defendant issued 2000 won for the above O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O (including additional tax) for the business year 208, which included 00 won for the above O-200 won for the reason that 200 won for the corporate tax imposed on the plaintiff, 200 won for the above O-O-O-O-O.O-O-O-O (the defendant included the reduction of corporate tax amount as the representative director of the plaintiff).

3. Related statutes;

4. Determination on the part of the claim for revocation of disposition of the corporate tax of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of the corporate tax of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, and thus must be revoked.

1) At the time of construction of a neighborhood living facility building located in OO, PO, PO, PO, PO, PO, 116-3 of the Plaintiff KimE (the representative director of the Plaintiff) around 2008, the Plaintiff entered into an application for a construction permit or construction management for the said new construction, but the Plaintiff did not receive a contract from PO, for the said new construction. The preparation of a contract statement stating the construction cost as the OOO of the construction cost to be used by the administrative agency for the application for a construction permit by the Plaintiff is aimed at assisting the Plaintiff in filing the said application for the construction permit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not sell the above OOO of the construction cost.

2) The Defendant was found to have actually spent the OOO as the fourth insurance cost, etc. for the nominal holders in the business year 2008, and thus, it was unlawful for the Defendant to view it as the processing cost even though it is not the processing cost.

“3) ① The Plaintiff borrowed money from KimF’s KimF’s real estate as collateral and used it as the Plaintiff’s operating fund. As such, the Plaintiff’s interest on loans in 2008 shall be recognized as the Plaintiff’s deductible expenses. ② The Plaintiff borrowed money from KimF (Representative Director of GGG Construction), AH (Representative Director of II), and Kim JJ (Representative Director of II of the Co., Ltd.), and used it as the Plaintiff’s operating fund, and thus, the Plaintiff used it as the Plaintiff’s operating fund. As such, the Plaintiff’s interest on the loan should be recognized as the Plaintiff’s deductible expenses.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 8, the plaintiff prepared a contract for a construction project between DD and DD on May 1, 2008 to July 30 of the same year, with the contract price OOO construction period from May 1, 2008, and ② the sales status by status prepared by the plaintiff

Contract OOOO

Work period from May 1, 2008 to July 30, 2008

In light of the fact that gold 6/30 OO, 8/12 OO, 9/12 OO, 11/27 OOO, 3 JejuD prepared a construction contract as described in the above construction contract with the Defendant on June 14, 2010, and it can be recognized that the tax invoice was not received, but it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff actually received the construction cost OOO under the construction contract with the JejuD, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff actually received the construction cost under the construction contract with the JejuD, and that the Plaintiff’s argument as to the claim is without merit.

In an administrative litigation seeking revocation on the grounds of illegality of taxation, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proof as to the legality of disposition and the existence of taxation requirements. However, as to the existence of special circumstances in light of the empirical rule, the taxpayer has the burden of proof or burden of proof with respect to the amount of expenses to be included in deductible expenses which serve as the basis for establishing corporate tax income, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proof with respect to the amount of expenses to be included in deductible expenses, which are the basis for establishing corporate tax income. However, as there are cases where the taxpayer bears the burden of proof with regard to the taxpayer taking into account the equity of the parties, the taxpayer's burden of proof is disputed whether some of the reported expenses is actual expenses, and the tax authority has proved the purpose of using the expenses claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment to the extent that the taxpayer has proved that the taxpayer did not incur any other expense than the same amount according to the details of the report, so long as the taxpayer claims that there was a fact requiring authorization on the same amount, it should be easily proven from the taxpayer (see, 2006Du365, etc.).

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the defendant recognized public charges (property tax) and technical qualification allowances among the amount claimed by the plaintiff's extra expenses as the plaintiff's expense, and corrected corporate tax at the plaintiff's expense. According to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, it can be recognized that the extra expense out of the extra expense expense amount claimed by the plaintiff, excluding the extra expense expense out of the health insurance premiums, was corrected as deductible expenses. Meanwhile, the above recognized deductible expenses are revealed as objective material among the expenditure amount claimed by the plaintiff. There is no evidence to deem that the above expense was included in deductible expenses. The amount appropriated as personnel expenses for the income statement for the business year 2008 business year is appropriated as personnel expenses, and there is no evidence to support that there is a lack of objective material to support the plaintiff's extra expense or that there is no other evidence to support that there is a lack of objective material to support the expenditure of the extra expense out of the amount claimed by the plaintiff as personnel expenses.

D. Determination as to the argument of the above 4. A. 3

In light of the following circumstances: (a) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff borrowed the real estate of KimF from KimF as collateral and used it as the Plaintiff’s operating fund; (b) according to the evidence Nos. 4 through 13 (including various numbers), KimF, HH, and Kim J (hereinafter “GF, etc.”) directly borrowed the loan from financial institutions as collateral of its own property, and then directly borrowed the loan from the financial institutions to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff; (c) however, the Plaintiff did not prepare a loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff borrowed the total amount of OF from KimF, etc. and stated it in the account book; (d) there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff paid the principal or interest on the loan to KimF, etc. as collateral; and (e) there is no other evidence to support that the Plaintiff paid the loan to the Plaintiff’s representative director for the loan as collateral, and there is no other evidence to support that the Plaintiff’s direct payment of the loan was made to each of the above 20-year affiliated companies.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The Plaintiff did not have any omission in the sales report on the amount of construction cost OCO since it was not awarded a contract for the said new construction work by JejuD. ② The Defendant’s revenue was leaked out of the company, and thus disposed of as a result of the Defendant’s recognition of the representative director. However, the said money was included in the total amount of OCO as recognized by the Defendant through the tax investigation process, the decision of correction following the objection, the decision of correction following the decision of reexamination, etc., and was not leaked outside the company, and thus, the Defendant’s payment was made as deductible expenses and the profits were not leaked. Thus, the disposition of notice of change in the amount of income for the business year 2

B. According to Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) and Article 106(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22390, Sep. 20, 2010; hereinafter the same), where a corporation omits taxable income by omitting sales or appropriating expenses, the tax authority shall dispose of taxable income through bonus, dividends, and other external outflow according to the person to whom the amount included in gross income belongs where it is obvious that the amount included in gross income has been leaked out of the company. However, where it is obvious that the person to whom it belongs is not recorded in the account book despite the fact of sales, if a corporation fails to enter the sales in the account book or appropriates the expenses for processing in the account book, it shall be deemed that the income of the corporation equivalent to the omitted sales or processing expenses has been leaked out, and in such case, it shall not be deemed that the entire amount of the sales has been leaked out from 170.

The plaintiff's return on the sales of the above OOO won was omitted, and the plaintiff's return on the sales of the above OOO won was not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff's profit equivalent to the processed personnel expenses stated in the income statement for the business year 2008 was spent as the expenses recognized by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit in this case, the part of the disposition imposing value-added tax and additional tax for the business year 2008 and the request for cancellation of the disposition claiming change of income amount for the business year 2007 shall be dismissed, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The part of the claim for cancellation of the disposition claiming change of income amount for the business year 2007, which is changed in exchange in the court of the first instance, is unlawful. The part of the claim for cancellation of the disposition imposing value-added tax and additional tax for the business year 2008 and the claim for cancellation of the disposition claiming for revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax and the principal tax from the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate as the plaintiff's appeal and the judgment of the court of first instance (the part of the claim for cancellation of the disposition demanding change of income amount for the business year 2008 and the additional tax for the business year 2008) are dismissed as it is without merit. (The lawsuit seeking cancellation of the disposition imposing value-added tax and additional tax from the original disposition was