2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

Cheong-gu Office

On May 23, 2012, the Defendant revoked the global income tax of 000 won (the remaining tax amount as a result of the Defendant’s correction of reduction is KRW 000,000. The Plaintiff’s written statement in the briefs dated March 27, 2014 is a clerical error), global income tax of 2006, global income tax of 006, and global income tax of 0000 for the year 2007, respectively.

(a) Results of tax investigation;

1) 원고는 세무사로 19xx. x. x. 서울 OO구 OO동 XXXX-X OO빌딩에서 세무사업을 하다 20XX. X. XX. 폐업신고를 하였으나, 2004. 4. 1.부터 2007. 7. 31.까지 아래와 같이 공인회계사 BBB 외 2인 명의로 세무사업을 계속하였다(이하 관련 소득을 '명의 차용 소득'이라 한다). 한편 원고는 2007. 1. 11. 자신의 이름으로 다시 개업하여 2010. 12. 31.까지 세무사업을 하였다.

2) The Plaintiff employed four business employees from January 1, 2004 to March 31, 2006, and paid the case fees for 3 to 6 months of the delegation company secured when the business employees secure a book keeping business office. As a result of the tax investigation conducted against the Plaintiff, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff had omitted the contract fees of the new company from the sales of the sales company (hereinafter referred to as “influent sales”).

3) The EE Gas Cooperatives, an EE Gas Sales Association, operated four joint business operators including the Plaintiff. From 2005 to 2009, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 000 as dividends from the said Association (hereinafter “instant income”). The Defendant confirmed, as a result of the tax investigation against the Plaintiff, the omission of global income tax return on the pertinent income.

(b) Imposition of value-added taxes and global income taxes;

1) According to the result of the tax investigation, the Defendant’s correction and notification of each of the value-added tax and the value-added tax (additional tax) for the first and second years in relation to the registration for the title borrowing from January 2004 to February 2, 2006, as shown in Table 1, as to the amount omitted sales to the Plaintiff on April 10, 2012.

Note 1).

2) On May 23, 2012, the Defendant, as shown in Table 3, corrected and notified the comprehensive income tax for the year 2004 through 2007 by aggregating the issues omitted in sales and the issues income as shown in Table 3 (hereinafter “amount of notified tax”). However, with respect to the amount omitted in sales at issue, the Defendant, in 2006, deemed that the amount equivalent to the expenses that the Defendant recognized at the time of a tax investigation was omitted.

3) The Plaintiff filed an appeal on July 12, 2012, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on December 31, 2012.

C. The defendant's ex officio correction of reduction

With respect to global income tax for the year 2004 through 2007 during the proceeding of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant, ex officio, made a correction to reduce it over three times as shown in Table 2. Ultimately, as shown in Table 3, 2005 global income tax for the year 2005, global income tax for the year 2006, global income tax for the year 2006, and global income tax for the year 2007 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

1) The value-added tax was reduced as indicated in the "Reduction column 1" on the ground that some of the omissions in sales were already reported as sales at the time of filing a return of value-added tax for each taxable period, and accordingly the global income tax was reduced ("the first correction", and "the first reduction tax amount").

2) The Plaintiff’s financial income in 2006 was KRW 40 million, and in 2006, KRW 2006,000,000 of the key income was excluded from global income tax (hereinafter “the second correction”) (hereinafter “the second reduction tax amount”).

3) As to the necessary expenses relating to the omitted sales amount, the sum of 000 won (00 won in 2004, 2005, 000 won in 2006, and 000 won in 2006) transferred from the FF account from 2004 to 20 February 20, 2006 from the FF account was additionally recognized as necessary expenses and reduced again on March 5, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “third correction,” hereinafter).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 3, 5 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and 9 to 13

of each statement, the whole purport of the pleading, including the number of each

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Global income tax for the year 2005

The former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006) enacted from January 1, 2007, which was enacted Article 17(1)6-3 of the former Income Tax Act related to dividend income of joint investment business operators (hereinafter referred to as the "instant provisions") was newly established in the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006). Therefore, imposing tax on dividend income for the portion reverted to the year 2005 among the pertinent income is contrary

2) global income tax for the year 2006

Since the business members' allowance paid in 2006 is recognized as the expense, the global income tax amount should be revoked.

(iii) global income tax for the year 2007;

The business employees GG demanded retirement allowances at the time of retirement, and the secured business partners paid KRW 000,000 as retirement allowances, as the case remains 400.00 won paid to other business employees should be recognized as expenses.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form. The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

C. Determination on global income tax for the 2005

1) Facts of recognition

A) In 2004, the Plaintiff purchased 7 shares of the EE Gas Association in the name of his spouse, children, etc., and sold the Gu shares around 2009.

B) The EEgas cooperative is an EEgas retail business entity. The Plaintiff served as the auditor of the EEgas cooperative from June 2004 to June 2007.

C) Joint representatives in the business registration of the EE Gas Cooperative paid income tax and other taxes from the previous year’s revenue amount, and distributed the balance as profit.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry in the evidence Nos. 3 and 6 and the purport of the whole pleading

2) Determination

가) 구 소득세법(2006. 12. 30. 법률 제8144호로 개정된 것)은 제6의3에서 '제43조의 규정에 따른 공동사업에서 발생한 소득금액 중 동조 제1항의 규정에 따른 출자공동사업자에 대한 손익분배비율에 상당하는 금액'을 배당소득으로 추가하였다.

2007년 출자공동사업자 관련 규정이 신설된 것은, 개정 전 제도 아래에서 익명조합원이 외부에 노출되지 않음에 따른 소득파악 문제를 해소하고, 공동사업자에 대한 과세관계를 명확히 하기 위한 것이다. 법령 개정이 있기 전에도 소득의 성격에 따라 배당소득 또는 이자소득(비영업대금의 이익)으로 과세하여 오던 것을 배당소득으로 규정한 것에 불과하고, 당초 과세 대상에 해당하지 아니하던 부분을 새로이 과세대상으로추가한 것은 아니다. 다만 쟁점 규정은, 익명조합원이 영업자로부터 이익을 현실적으로 분배받지 못한 경우에도, 영업자의 영업에서 발생한 소득금액에 익명조합원의 손익분배비율을 곱하여 배분한 소득금액을 그 익명조합원의 배당소득으로 한다. 즉 통상적인 배당소득과 달리 이익의 현실적 분배, 분배금의 확정 등 소득 확정을 요건으로 하지 않는다.

Although the Plaintiff did not actually receive distribution, there may be a problem of retroactive taxation if the Plaintiff imposed tax according to the pertinent provisions. However, the key income is not subject to the income actually received by the Plaintiff, but subject to the newly established issues provisions. This is depending on whether the legal nature of the amount received according to the contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and EE Gas Cooperatives is interest income or dividend income.

The issue of retroactive taxation according to the newly established regulations is different and does not occur.

B) Considering the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, it is reasonable to impose the instant income as dividend income pursuant to Article 17(1)7 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same) as dividend income. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(1) The income of this case remains after deducting taxes, etc. from the income of the EE Gas Association, a business operator.

shall be distributed in accordance with the ratio of investment, and shall constitute a distribution of profit.

② Article 17(2)1 of the Income Tax Act provides that “The value of money and other property acquired by an employee or investor due to retirement, withdrawal, or reduction of investment shall be deemed as dividend income for the amount exceeding the amount required for the employee or investor to acquire the relevant investment.” The income tax is imposed on the actual profits earned by an employee or investor in a taxation-oriented manner other than cash dividends and stock dividends. As such, Article 17 of the Income Tax Act does not limit the subject of dividend income to a corporation. The Plaintiff’s profits that the investor received from EE Gas Association, who is an individual entrepreneur, may also be deemed as dividend income.

③ Article 17 (1) 7 of the Income Tax Act provides for comprehensiveism by type by treating "the income similar to the income under subparagraphs 1 through 6 of this Article, which has the nature of profit distribution" as dividend income. The key income is income similar to the income under subparagraph 3, which is of the nature of profit distribution, so it is possible to impose tax on the basis of subparagraph 7.

D. Determination on global income tax for the year 2006, 2007

1) Facts of recognition

A) With respect to the omitted sales at issue, the Plaintiff prepared a separate account of the customer’s details of deposits by the promotional member, and fees paid to the promotional member (Evidence No. 5-2, No. 5-3, hereinafter referred to as “instant account book”). The Defendant calculated the omitted sales from January 5, 2004 to February 20, 206 based on the instant account book in the course of the tax investigation, and recognized necessary expenses only as follows, that was deposited in the Plaintiff’s account in the name of HH, III, JJ, and KK.

B) The Plaintiff did not specifically assert and prove necessary expenses in the course of the tax investigation and trial request. The Plaintiff submitted the LL account with its head of office only during the instant litigation process. The Defendant recognized the amount paid to MM, III, andOO from January 5, 2004 to February 20, 2006 as necessary expenses, and corrected the comprehensive income tax in 2004 to 2006.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry in the evidence Nos. 5 and 13 and the purport of the whole pleadings

When a tax assessment is conducted on the omitted income by the on-site investigation decision, barring any evidence to deem that there was a separate expense corresponding to the omitted income, the total amount of such income should be added to the amount of income, and the cost corresponding to the omitted income was also omitted, a taxpayer seeking a separate deduction is in accord with the empirical rule and the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2673, Nov. 27, 2003).

With respect to global income tax for the year 2006 and 2007, there is no evidence to acknowledge necessary expenses asserted by the Plaintiff. Moreover, considering the following circumstances revealed in the above recognition, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable as it does not seem that necessary expenses alleged by the Plaintiff were omitted at the time of filing a global income tax return.

① Of the global income accrued in 2006, the portion of income omitted in sales was recognized as income of the same amount as that initially alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, there is no room to recognize necessary expenses additionally. Furthermore, the portion of expenses claimed by the Plaintiff based on the account book was already reflected through a reduction or correction. The remaining global income is a nominal income. This portion of the remaining global income is a nominal income, and the Plaintiff reported income under another person’s name while conducting a tax business under the name of another person. There is a possibility that a business employee’s allowance claimed by the Plaintiff may be omitted at the time of filing the initial income return, and may be included in the expenses recognized in relation to the income omitted in sales.

② The global income amount attributed to year 2007 is the nominal income and key income. Among the necessary expenses for the year 2007, the Plaintiff asserted, there is no evidence to acknowledge the disbursement itself. The Plaintiff operated his/her tax accountant office in his/her name separately from his/her business place in 2007. There is no evidence to ascertain whether the business employees’ allowances are expenses related to his/her tax accountant office or are omitted at the time of filing the initial income return.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.