2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff is the representative director of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cheong○-dong 133-6 located in Cheongok-dong 133-6 who conducts housing construction business as a target business.

B. During the business year of 2003, the non-party company received three copies of the purchase tax invoice which is the total value of KRW 150 million (hereinafter referred to as “the instant purchase amount”) from the largest ○○ Master Company operating the ○○ Master Company without real transactions during the period of 2003, and reported and paid corporate tax for the business year of 2003 by adding it to deductible expenses.

C. On the other hand, on April 6, 2005, the head of the ○○ Tax Office confirmed that the purchase amount of the issue of this case was data in the course of the investigation into the ○○ Master Commercial Company. However, on April 22, 2005, the head of the ○○ Tax Office sent a explanatory notice stating that the said taxation data will be deemed legitimate if he does not raise any objection by April 22, 2005.

D. Accordingly, on May 17, 2005, the non-party company collected 16.5 million won (hereinafter referred to as "the key amount of this case") added value added tax to the purchase amount of this case from the plaintiff and disposed of it as an internal reserve. On May 31, 2005, the non-party company filed a revised report to the head of ○○ Tax Office on May 31, 2005 on the corporate tax amount reverted to 2003 business year.

E. However, on December 8, 2006, the head of the ○○ Tax Office deemed that the non-party company was aware of the correction in accordance with the proviso of Article 106(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18706, Feb. 19, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act") and disposed of the amount at issue as bonus to the plaintiff. At that time, the non-party company notified the non-party company of the change in the amount of income. Since the non-party company did not withhold and pay the labor income tax on the above issue amount, the non-party company notified the non-party company of the correction and notification of KRW 50,293,020 for the amount of wage and salary income tax attributed to 2003. In addition, on October 17, 2007, the defendant notified the plaintiff of the evidentiary materials recognized by the director of the ○○ Tax Office, and notified the non-party company of the additional tax return (including additional tax).

F. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 14, 2008, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the appeal on July 14, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 4-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-4, 4-1 through 8, 5 through 9, 10-1 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the part of the claim for revocation of imposition of KRW 2,115,56 in the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

We examine ex officio the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit.

On the other hand, with respect to the part of the tax imposition disposition, which was partially revoked by a correction or re-revision, there is no interest in the lawsuit to seek revocation of the original imposition disposition, and it is sufficient to seek revocation of the original imposition disposition, which was finally reduced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu393, Nov. 23, 1982).

As to this case, in full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 2, as a whole, the defendant corrected the amount of KRW 2,15,56 for additional tax due to erroneous payment from among the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 18,490,757 on June 30, 2008. According to the above facts of recognition, as to the corrected amount of tax as above, the plaintiff has no interest in legal action to seek revocation any longer after accomplishing the purpose of the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 18,490,757. Thus, among the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 18,490,757, the part requesting revocation of disposition imposing additional tax of KRW 2,115,56 is illegal (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition in this case").

3. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. Summary of the ground for the plaintiff's claim

The plaintiff argues that the disposition of this case is legitimate for the following reasons:

1) The proviso of Article 106(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the new Act applies from the business year that begins after February 19, 2005, which was promulgated in accordance with Article 1 of the Addenda. Thus, in this case, Article 106(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18174 of Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act") which was enforced during the business year of 2003 should be applied. It is improper to dispose of the issue amount of this case as bonus to the plaintiff, who is the representative director of the non-party company, even though he received the "written explanation of taxation data explanation" other than the "written notice of tax audit."

2) The proviso of Article 106(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the new Act is not only a violation of Articles 23(1) and 37(2) of the Constitution, but also a violation of the Income Tax Act and thus null and void. Thus, the instant disposition based on this premise is unlawful. In addition, since the instant disposition based on a different premise was already recovered from the Plaintiff at the time of notifying the change in the amount of income to the non-party company and did not have income, the instant disposition based on the different premise is also a violation of Article 21(2)1 of

3) Additional tax on negligent tax returns shall be calculated on the basis of an amount obtained by deducting the withheld tax amount from the non-party company pursuant to Article 81(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same).

(b) Related statutes;

The entry of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes is the same.

C. Determination

1) The plaintiff's Ba 1-2 and the plaintiff's Ba 1-2

A) Article 106 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the new Act, which was amended and promulgated on February 19, 2005, provides that "where a domestic corporation collects sales revenue and processing expenses illegally flown out of the company within the time limit for the revised return under Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and makes a report by including them in gross income as tax adjustment, the disposal of income shall be deemed retained earnings: Provided, That this shall not apply where the amount of the outflown company is included in gross income with prior knowledge of the receipt of a notice of tax investigation or of the commencement of tax investigation, etc., and Article 1 of the Addenda of the new Act provides that "this Decree shall enter into force from the date of its promulgation," and Article 7 of the Addenda provides that "the amended provisions of Article 106 (4) shall apply from the date of the revised report after this Decree enters into force, Article 2 of the Addenda of the new Act, which provides that "this Decree shall apply from the date of the revised report, which was made after January 1, 2005, as mentioned above, Article 3016 of the new Act.

B) However, the special provisions on the disposal of income under Article 106 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act was newly established on December 29, 200 by the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act on December 30, 200, but was newly established on February 19, 2005 again. The main sentence of Article 106 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "where the amount of the outflow from the company is already known that it would be corrected in advance, it shall be included in the calculation of the income (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1703 of December 29, 2000)" in the proviso of Article 106 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act only if the company received a notice of correction from the non-party 1 to the non-party 6 taxation data or received a new notice of correction or notification of the amount of the outflow from the non-party 1 to the gross income without any change, it shall be deemed that the company was not aware that it was subject to the tax investigation."

C) Accordingly, there is no reason to believe that there is a partial objection to the different advance system.

2) The plaintiff's Ba-2 is replaced by the plaintiff's Ba-Ba

However, Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the new Act provides that in the case of the outflow from the company, the dividends to the person to whom the outflow from the company belongs (in the case of an in-house loss), bonuses, other income, etc. shall be deemed to have been disposed of, and that the amount of the outflow from the beginning is not the same as the case where the outflow from the beginning is not the case where the outflow from the beginning because the amount of the outflow from the company was illegally recovered, such as an omission of sales, processing expenses, etc. was collected after the occurrence of the outflow from the company.

Therefore, this part of the prior plaintiff's assertion is without merit on different premises.

3) On the ground of the plaintiff's Ba.3, the plaintiff's Ba.

A) On the other hand, Article 81 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act provides that where a final return of tax base is not filed, the amount calculated by multiplying the ratio of unreported income to global income by the calculated tax amount shall be the amount subject to additional tax; Provided, That where income tax is fixed at source for non-reported income, the amount obtained by deducting the relevant withheld tax amount shall be the amount subject to additional tax. The purport of the above provision is to impose an additional tax on all non-reported income on a person who fails to fulfill his/her duty to report under the Income Tax Act in principle. However, in cases where income tax is withheld at source for non-reported income, the risk of securing tax amount has not existed, so that the relevant amount subject to additional tax can be deducted from the amount subject to

B) Although the non-party company received notice of change in the amount of income on December 2006, the non-party company did not withhold and pay the labor income tax on the issue amount of this case, and on September 4, 2007, the head of ○○ Tax Office corrected and notified the non-party company to the non-party company 50,293,020 won earned income tax for the year 2003. As seen above, the non-party company did not object to the above disposition and lost the lawsuit against the head of ○○ Tax Office claiming revocation of the tax payment of earned income tax by 2008Guhap31569, the non-party company filed a lawsuit against the head of ○○ Tax Office against the non-party company to the above disposition and filed a final appeal, the fact that the above case is still pending in the court of final appeal is not a dispute between the parties. According to the above fact of recognition, if the income tax is not withheld, it does not constitute the case where the income tax is withheld on the income amount not reported under Article 81 (1)

C) Accordingly, there is no reason to believe that another advance technical system is a seafarer senior secretary.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of imposition of KRW 2,115,56, among the lawsuits of this case, is unlawful and dismissed. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.