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

1,948,310 won for the first term of January 2003, 9,773,120 won for the second term of February 2003

12,150,530 won for the first term of January 2004, 12,666,220 won for the second term of February 2004

10,724,170 for the first term in 2005, and 10,501,940 for the second term in 2005;

8,828,670 won for the first term of January 2006, and 8,572,560 won for the second term of February 2006

1,230,140 for the first term of 207; and

(b) Corporate tax: 27,355,670 won for the business year 2003 and 34,390,950 for the business year 2004; and

The imposition of KRW 30,512,960 in the business year 2005, and KRW 20,166,890 in the business year 2006 shall be revoked.

A. In the taxable period of the value-added tax from January 2003 through January 1, 2007, the Plaintiff, who had been operating a taxi transportation business in the Eup/Myeon/Eup/Eup/Myeon in Gangwon-do, as its head office, received the purchase tax invoice for the fuel cost of KRW 483,336,00,000 that the Plaintiff affiliated with the Plaintiff personally borne under the Plaintiff’s name, deducted the input tax amount from the output tax amount, and reported the value-added tax and corporate tax by including the input tax amount in the deductible expenses.

B. As a result of the tax investigation conducted by the National Tax Service on a taxi company by the National Tax Service, when it was verified that the fuel cost spent by an individual who belongs to the corporation was unfairly appropriated as the transportation cost of the company and the input tax deduction of value-added tax was made, the defendant recommended the plaintiff to file a revised tax return on November 13, 2007, and the plaintiff filed a revised tax return on December 7, 2007.

C. On August 7, 2008, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of KRW 112,426,470 and the total amount of KRW 96,395,660 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) of the remainder of the fuel cost, excluding the amount reported by the Plaintiff, among the total amount of KRW 483,336,00,00, 431,000, excluding the amount reported by the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of KRW 112,426,470 and the total amount of the corporate tax, 96,395,660 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

(d) The plaintiff, on January 14, 2009, filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but the decision of dismissal on March 17, 2009 was made, and on May 19, 2009, filed the instant case suit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry of Evidence A, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 1 through 8 (including separate numbers), 1, 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 1 through 8

2. Whether the disposition is proper; and

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

① The act of including fuel expenses paid by an individual in the transportation cost of the company and deducting the purchase tax amount of value-added tax is an accounting practice established for 30 years, and the disposition of this case which is late at issue is contrary to Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

② From 202 to 2006, the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to make a revised return, pointing out the fact that the Plaintiff kept an account of the purchase amount of outstanding fuel costs as a tax amount, and the Plaintiff paid the corporate tax and value-added tax amount of 28 million won upon filing a revised return to that effect. However, the Defendant’s disposition of this case by conducting a tax investigation conducted on behalf of the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff again violates the equity with other companies and violates Article 81-4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which prohibits duplicate tax

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion

According to Article 17(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 19(2) of the Corporate Tax Act, where items entered differently from the facts are entered in the tax invoice received, the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount, and the expenses paid in connection with the corporation's business are generally accepted as normal or directly related to profit. The key fuel cost cannot be deducted from the input tax amount and the deductible expenses, and the fact that there was an omission in taxation for a certain period is not a "national tax practice accepted by the taxpayer". The plaintiff's above assertion to the effect that the non-taxation practice was established unless the defendant has expressed a public opinion to the effect that he would not impose tax on the fuel cost of this case.

2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

The disposition of this case is just a correction of the tax base and the amount of tax by stating that there is errors or omissions in the initial return and the revised return of the plaintiff as a result of the tax investigation as mentioned in the preceding part of this case, and there is no evidence to recognize that the plaintiff conducted a duplicate tax investigation on the plaintiff. Therefore, the chief of the plaintiff's accusation does not have any reason [the revised return and guidance of the defendant based on the result of the tax audit on the taxi company by the National Tax Service (Evidence 3) is not subject to the tax investigation of the Framework Act

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is dismissed, and it is judged the same as the order.