2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On January 24, 2002, the director of the District Tax Office, who was appointed as the representative director on May 24, 2000, conducted a field investigation on the business year 2000 and 2001 of AAElectronic Co., Ltd. (the closure of business on April 29, 2002, was ordered to be dissolved on December 4, 2006, hereinafter referred to as "AElectronic"), and conducted a field investigation on the business year 200 and 2001, considered AAElectronic as data, he estimated the corporate income amount of 200 business year of AAElectronic, and notified the change in income amount to the representative.

B. On August 28, 2007, the director of the tax office: (a) deemed that a tax invoice (value of KRW 190,000,000) received by AAE from CE during the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2001 constituted a processed tax invoice (this refers to the data not verified in the investigation in 2002) and determined the estimated investigation of the corporate income amount for the business year 2001; (b) disposed of KRW 281,214,243 as a bonus for the Plaintiff, the representative of AAE, at the time of the estimated tax base, as a representative of the Plaintiff, at the time of the estimated tax base amount, as a bonus for the latter (hereinafter “instant notice of change of income”).

C. On March 19, 2009, the Defendant did not file a revised return in accordance with the notice of change in the income amount as of August 28, 2007, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 128,729,490 of the global income tax for the year 2001 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. AAelectronic did not pay income tax on the Plaintiff’s earned income attributed to year 2001 based on the year-end tax settlement, and the Plaintiff did not file a final return on the tax base within the global income tax period reverted to year 2001.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 14, oral argument

The purport of the whole

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) Failure to accept a written notice of change in income amount

The plaintiff did not have received a written notice of change in the amount of income and thus the taxpayer did not establish.

B) Absence of disposition grounds

Although the Plaintiff is not registered as a representative director of AAE, the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the global income tax, since substantial activities such as business activities were conducted by BB.

C) Expiration of the exclusion period

The Plaintiff did not have any income in the business year 2001 and was not obligated to make a final return of global income tax base. Since the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to report the income tax from the recognized contribution disposal, the exclusion period for imposition of global income tax in 2001 shall be five years. The notice of change in the income amount of this case was made after the lapse of the exclusion period for imposition of global income tax, which is the original tax liability, was illegal.

2) Defendant’s assertion (with regard to the lapse of the exclusion period)

The Plaintiff is obligated to make a final return on the tax base even in cases where there is no income including the earned income, and the Plaintiff did not make such a report, and the income from the recognized loan constitutes global income as earned income, and make an additional return and payment after receiving the notice of change in the amount of income. As such, the Plaintiff did not make the above declaration, the Plaintiff constitutes “where a taxpayer fails to submit a tax base return within the statutory reporting period,” under Article 26-2(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the exclusion period for imposition of the income tax for the year 2001 should be seven years.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the non-receiving argument of the notice of change in amount of income

In a case where a postal item is not sent and returned to the addressee’s domicile by registered mail, barring special circumstances, it shall be deemed that it was served on the addressee at that time (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu8977 delivered on February 13, 1998).

However, according to Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, it can be acknowledged that the notice of change in the amount of income issued by the director of the tax office to the plaintiff on Aug. 28, 2007 by registered mail was sent and not returned to the plaintiff on Aug. 28, 2007, the plaintiff's domicile, and there is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff did not actually reside in the above address. Thus, the above notice of change in the amount of income was served to the plaintiff around that time. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) As to the non-existence of grounds for disposition

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 5 through 9, the director of the Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office filed a complaint against the plaintiff, femaleB, and newD with the head of the Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office on February 15, 2002. On December 29, 2003, the plaintiff was suspected of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. On July 31, 2002, the non-detained public trial disposition on July 31, 2002 against the plaintiff was issued, and the prosecution suspension disposition on the same day against the newD was issued. On the other hand, according to the evidence Nos. 6, B, 9, and 10 as well as the representative director, the plaintiff was responsible for the development of technology as a major shareholder with 40% shares of AAA electronic, and the NoB and NewD can be acknowledged as the representative director who was responsible for the business activities of AA electronic, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff is merely a reason to recognize the representative director as the above.

3) As to the exclusion period of imposition

The amount of income disposed of as a result of the recognition of the representative of a corporation pursuant to the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act is deemed to have been paid by the corporation on the date when the notice of change in the amount of income was received, but this does not mean that the corporation actually pays the amount of income to the representative, and it is deemed to have been paid on the date when the notice of change in the amount of income was received, regardless of whether the amount of income was actually paid to the person to whom it was actually paid. The meaning of the above amount of income is that the person to whom the disposition of income was issued is not the substance of whether the person to whom the disposition of income was issued, and it is deemed that the person to whom the above notice of change in the amount of income was issued is deemed to have the income at the time when the scope of the taxation claim was extended. In addition, in order to establish the withholding obligation of the corporation to whom the above notice of change in amount of income was received, the income tax liability of the original person to whom the above notice of change in amount of income was established shall not be established.

However, according to Articles 70(1) and (2), and 73(1)1 and (4) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003), even if a resident with only earned income is a resident, if a withholding agent fails to pay income tax through the year-end tax settlement, he/she is obligated to make a final return on the tax base. However, if there is a notice of change in the amount of income in this case, it is deemed that the Plaintiff had earned income for the year 2001, and such income does not actually accrue, and such income does not actually accrue between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2001, there is no evidence to find that the Plaintiff has realized any earned income or global income other than the income pursuant to the above notice of change in the amount of income. Therefore, it shall not be deemed that the Plaintiff has no obligation to make a final return on global income until May 31, 2001, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff did not file a tax return within the statutory period.

Therefore, in principle, the exclusion period of imposition of the Plaintiff’s global income tax for the year 2001 shall be considered to have been five years pursuant to Article 26-2(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the exclusion period of imposition was set on June 1, 2007. Therefore, the Defendant’s notice of change of income amount and the disposition of this case against the Plaintiff on August 28, 2007 should be revoked since it was unlawful since it was made after the Plaintiff’s original tax liability disappeared.

In regard to this, the Defendant also includes the bonus notified on the change in the amount of income due to the representative bonus disposition. Since the Plaintiff did not file a revised return even after receiving the notice on the change in the amount of income in this case, it constitutes a case where the Plaintiff did not report the global income for 2001. However, Article 134 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20323, Oct. 15, 2007) on the return and payment of additional income due to the disposition of income in accordance with the Corporate Tax Act is a provision applicable to the case where the notice on the change in amount of income is legitimate. As seen earlier, as long as the notice on the change in amount of income in this case is illegal, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.