2. On November 15, 2007, the part that exceeds 229,837,445 won among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 255,601,445 won against the Plaintiff on November 15, 2006 and the part that exceeds 82,438,024 won among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 945,715,964 won for the business year 2006 shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining main claims against the defendant and the defendant's conjunctive claims against the Republic of Korea are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Guro Tax Office is assessed against the Plaintiff; the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiff; and the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Republic of Korea is assessed against the Plaintiff.

On November 15, 2007, the part of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax by the head of the Gu Guro Tax Office for the plaintiff on November 15, 2007, which exceeds the amount of each tax stated in the "reasonable amount of tax" column shall be revoked.

2. Preliminary purport of claim

A. A. A claim against the director of the Guro Tax Office: On November 15, 2007, the part of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax on the attached list 2, which was made against the plaintiff on November 15, 2007, which exceeds the tax amount stated in the "justifiable tax amount" shall be revoked.

B. Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea: 376,040,000 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from November 16, 2007 to May 28, 2010 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

A. The plaintiff's status

On November 26, 1997 in order to carry on the construction design business, general supervision business, etc.,CC Engineering Certified BB Engineering Certified on December 24, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "B Engineering") a corporation established on March 2, 1994 in order to carry on the construction design business, general supervision business, etc., and changed its trade name to BB Engineering Certified on June 30, 2007 (the plaintiff). On December 31, 2007, the corporation merged the two architectural firms (hereinafter referred to as "CB Certified architect").

(b) Conclusion of supervision services;

On June 8, 2001, theCC Engineering and BB Engineering entered into a supervision service agreement with AAA Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "AAAA Development") with respect to a pro rata apartment newly constructed on the 6th ground of Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-si, the AAAA development entered into a supervision service agreement with a total of 13 billion won from the date of entering into the contract to the date of pre-use inspection with respect to the pro rata apartment newly constructed on the 6th ground of Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-si. Afterward Engineering and BB Engineering agreed on supervision services and the above supervision service agreement with AAA Development around September 2003.

(c) Return and payment of corporate tax and value-added tax onCC engineering and BB engineering;

The Plaintiff, which was merged with theCC Engineering and BB Engineering, has paid corporate tax and value-added tax in the course of supervision business. The details of inclusion of gross income and deductible expenses, output tax and input tax amount related to this case are as follows.

(1)CC engineering and BB engineering provided supervision services to AA Development and issued to AAA Development a tax invoice of KRW 6.1 billion in total of the supply value corresponding to the service cost (hereinafter referred to as “instant supervision service cost”) (see the report on the contents of the instant supervision service return and revision in attached Table 3), and the date when the said tax invoice was issued and issued is regarded as the time of supply for the supervision service, and each of the above supply value is regarded as the time of supply for the pertinent business year where the tax invoice was issued, and the output tax amount corresponding to the supply value was included in the output tax amount for the pertinent taxable period.

(2) On March 11, 2004, the Plaintiff removed the building site 731-60 square meters of land, 445.60 square meters of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Dobong-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) and the building of the second floor neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) on its ground, and then included the book value of 271,434,000 won (hereinafter “the book value of the instant building”) in the deductible expenses for the corporate tax for the business year of 2004.

(3) Around November 2006, the Plaintiff paid 200 million won (hereinafter “instant outsourcing”) to DDR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DDR”) as deductible expenses of corporate tax for the business year of 2006, and included the input tax amount of the value-added tax for 2006.

(d) Tax investigation by the director of Seoul Regional Tax Office;

The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office shall conduct a tax investigation on the plaintiff from July 9, 2007 to August 21, 2007, and notify the defendant of the result, and the matters related to paragraph (c) above shall be as follows:

① The term “CC Engineering and BB engineering” continued to provide supervision services to AA Development by September 30, 2003 without interruption, and the term “supervision service cost” was agreed to be received equally from July 2001 to the pre-use inspection. As such, the time of supply for the service cost of KRW 6.1 billion and the time of attribution of profit and loss for the service payment of KRW 6.1 billion in the instant supervision service cost shall be corrected as indicated in the column for the contents of the report and revision of the attached list 3.

② Since the book value of this case is capital expenditure for the land of this case, it shall not be included in the deductible expenses of the corporate tax of 2004.

③ The cost of the instant outsourcing is only a bribe paid by the Plaintiff to Park E-E by the representative director of the DD Planning, and is not related to the business, and thus, is not included in the input tax amount of the second-year value-added tax in 2006.

(e) Correction and notification of corporate tax and value-added tax by the head of the Gu tax office;

(1) On November 15, 2007, upon notification of the results of the above tax investigation, the head of the Gu Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the value-added tax and corporate tax as stated in the item column of the notice of tax investigation listed in the attached Table 4 (the head of the Gu Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the amount calculated by deducting the already paid tax amount, etc. from the assessed tax amount of the value-added tax and the corporate tax as above, and the amount of the determined tax is the same as the entry in the item of the list

(2) When the Plaintiff reported and paid corporate tax for the business year 2001 and value-added tax for the first and second years in 2001, the period of attribution of approximately KRW 1.52,028,000,000 among the supervision service charges of this case, which was appropriated as the gross income and output tax for the business year 2001 and for the first and second years in 2001, was revised for the business year 2002 and 2003 (see, e.g., the difference between the details of the declaration and revision of the listed supervisory service charges in attached Form 3). Accordingly, the amount of the corporate tax for the business year 2001 and the first and second years in 203 were adjusted to increase the value-added tax for the business year 201, and the amount of the returned and paid value-added tax for the first and second years in 201, the period of exclusion for national tax refund was not reduced due to the reason that the national tax had already been set.

(3) As to the corporate tax for the business year 2002 pertaining toCC engineering, the head of the Gu Tax Office notified the amount of the determination to KRW 97,526,070, which was determined as KRW 690,866,637, and subsequently deducted the amount of the paid tax and the amount of the paid tax. ② As to the corporate tax for the business year 2003 related to BB engineering, the amount of the determination was determined as KRW 1,067,982,576, which was determined as KRW 64,761,966, which was the difference between the amount of the paid tax and the amount of the paid tax, which was deducted from the amount of the paid tax.

F. Determination of tax appeal

Upon the plaintiff's tax appeal, the Tax Tribunal recognized "CC Engineering and BB Engineering from June 27, 2001 to March 15, 2002 as a legitimate tax invoice issued and delivered before the arrival of the service, and the tax invoice issued on September 30, 2003 as a legitimate tax invoice issued on September 30, 2003 (370,357,142 won) and corrected the tax base and tax amount of value-added tax on the day of the pertinent tax invoice (370,357,142 won). The supervisory service costs of this case were calculated on the basis of the rate of the work progress of each business year, and included the income and expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses for the pertinent business year, thereby correcting the corporate tax base and tax amount, and dismissing the remainder of the plaintiff's appeal."

(g) Determination of reduction;

On March 11, 2010, the head of the Gu Guro Tax Office reduced the amount of value-added tax on the second half of 2003 from KRW 225,373,513 to KRW 212,003,046 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”), which remains after the reduction from the disposition of imposition of value-added tax on November 15, 2007, among the details of imposition of value-added tax and the details of imposition of value-added tax on the second half of 203.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 13, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 3, Gap evidence 4, 5-1 to 3, Gap evidence 6-1 to 3, Gap evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence 9-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 to 51, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 3, Eul evidence 4 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole.

2. Determination on this safety defense

(a) Head of the defendant Guro-gu Tax Office;

(1) Although Defendant Guro Tax Office imposed corporate tax of KRW 97,526,070 for the business year 2002 on the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the tax amount exceeding KRW 441,915,084 out of the above tax amount on the premise that Defendant Guro Tax Office imposed corporate tax of KRW 690,866,637 on the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the tax amount exceeding KRW 97,526,070 of the above excess tax amount, which the Plaintiff seeks revocation by the instant lawsuit, and thus is unlawful. In addition, the Defendant Guro Tax Office did not impose corporate tax for the business year 2003 regarding the BB engineering, even if the Plaintiff did not impose corporate tax for the business year 2003 regarding the BB engineering, this part is unlawful.

(2) The Plaintiff did not comply with the procedure of the previous trial regarding the imposition of value-added tax by the second time in 2003.

B. Determination

(1) Determination on the first proposal

(A) In a case where the tax authority determines the corporate tax and defense tax on the taxpayer’s income under the Corporate Tax Act and notifies the taxpayer of the amount obtained by deducting the aggregate of the amount of voluntary payment and the amount of withholding tax, the above disposition is a disposition with which the total amount of the determined tax is determined, and only the difference is notified after deducting the amount of voluntary payment and the amount of withholding tax, it cannot be deemed a disposition with respect to only the difference (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu230, Nov. 26, 1985; 9Da4526, Dec. 10, 199).

(B) As to the facts found above, since the decision-making amount of the corporate tax for the business year 2002 pertaining toCC engineering was determined to be KRW 690,866,637, the above decision-making amount shall be deemed to have been determined, and the decision-making amount of the corporate tax for the business year 2003 related to BB engineering shall not be deemed to have been determined to have been determined to have been KRW 97,526,07,07, and the decision-making amount of the corporate tax for the business year 2003 related to BB engineering shall not be deemed to have been determined to have been determined to have been determined as the above amount, and it shall not be deemed

(2) Determination on the second ground

As above, the Tax Tribunal decided to include the imposition of value-added tax in 2003. Accordingly, the defendant Guro Tax Office decided to reduce the imposition of value-added tax on March 11, 2010. This part of the defendant Guro Tax Office's assertion that the plaintiff did not comply with the second imposition of value-added tax in 2003 is without merit.

3. Whether the lawsuit on the ancillary claim against the defendant of the oldro tax office is legitimate

As to the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit ex officio, the above conjunctive claim is merely a part of the main claim and does not constitute a separate subject matter of lawsuit. As such, the plaintiff has no interest in the lawsuit seeking a separate conjunctive claim. Accordingly, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful.

4. Whether each of the dispositions in this case is legitimate (the part of the plaintiff's primary claim against Defendant Guro-gu Tax Office)

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff filed a return on and paid the corporate tax for the business year 2001 and the first half of 2001 and the second half of 271 value with respect to the supply price under the tax invoice dated June 27, 2001 (the supply price of KRW 1.95 million), August 31, 2001, and tax invoice dated October 31, 2001 (each supply price of KRW 613 million), among the supervision service charges of this case. However, the former director of the tax office adjusted the period of attribution of the above income as stated in the list 3, "the details of the report on and revision to the report on the supervision service costs of the attached Table 3," and the revised contents of the revised contents of the service charges of this case, which were reduced in the business year 2002 and 2008,000,000 won were reduced in the business year 203 and 201,2010,000 won were not reduced in the above business year 201.

This is in violation of the principle of double taxation, the principle of tax equality, and the principle of good faith, because it was imposed twice on the same income in the business year 2001 and 2002 and 2003, and thus, the above 1.52,02, the corporate tax for the business year 2,0280 million won and the second imposition of value-added tax for the business year 2003 is illegal.

(2) Since the Plaintiff used the instant building for the purpose of its office and removed it after lease, the book value of the instant building constitutes repair expenses to restore the original state of the instant land, which is fixed assets, or to increase efficiency or profitability, and thus constitutes beneficial expenditures.

Therefore, the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 2004, which regarded the book value of this case as capital expenditure, was unlawful.

(3) Since business information related to reconstruction and redevelopment is important for companies engaged in supervisory and design business like the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with DD Planning to obtain such information, and paid the instant outsourcing cost to DD Planning in return.

Therefore, since the foreign trade expenses of this case constitute expenses incurred by the Plaintiff in relation to business, they should be included in the deductible expenses of the corporate tax for the business year 2006 and the input tax amount of the 2nd taxable year in 2006.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached List 5 is as shown in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the first proposal

In light of the above facts and the following circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, only the circumstance alleged by the Plaintiff does not constitute a violation of the principle of double taxation prohibition, the principle of tax equality, and the principle of good faith. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(A) Articles 14(1) and 40(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provide that the income of a domestic corporation for each business year shall be the amount calculated by deducting the total amount of losses incurred during the business year from the total amount of earnings accrued during the business year; and that the business year of accrual of earnings and losses of a domestic corporation for each business year shall be the business year which includes the date on which the concerned earnings and losses are determined; and Article 9(2) and (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that the time when the services are supplied shall be the time when the services are supplied or the goods, facilities, or rights are used; but all or part of the price for the goods or services is received before the said time is determined; and at the same time, where the entrepreneur issues a tax invoice under Article 16 or a receipt under Article 32 with respect to the received price, the time of such issuance shall

The fact that the head of the Gu-ro Tax Office established the legitimate business year of accrual of the instant supervision service charges and revised the corporate tax for the business year of 2002 and 2003 and the second-term value-added tax for the business year of 2003 is in accordance with the above provisions. As such, the business year of accrual of income of 1.52,0280,000 won adjusted among the supervision service charges of this case shall not be deemed to be unlawful since the business year of accrual of income of 202 and 2003

(B) There is no evidence to acknowledge thatCC Engineering and BB Engineering reported and paid corporate tax for the business year 2001 and the first and second half-year value-added tax for the year 2001, or did not submit a tax base return by the statutory deadline for filing a tax return. Therefore, the exclusion period for taxation for each of the above taxes shall be five years. Thus, at the time of each disposition of this case, the exclusion period for taxation was imposed.

However, upon the expiration of the exclusion period, the taxation authority cannot make any disposition such as a new decision or decision of correction of increase, as well as a decision of correction of reduction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du6657, Sept. 24, 2002). Defendant old-gu Tax Office cannot make a decision of correction of reduction of the corporate tax for the business year 2001 and the first and second half value-added tax for the business year 201.

(C) When the tax authority adjusts the period of attribution of the income and determines the amount of tax for the pertinent taxable period, there is no ground to believe that the tax authority is obligated to make a decision of mandatory reduction or to appropriate the refund for the other taxable period affected by the determination of the amount of tax for the affected taxable period.

(D) It cannot be deemed that a decision of correction of corporate tax, etc. for the business year 2002 that affected the above corporate tax, etc. cannot be made solely on the ground that a decision of correction of reduction of corporate tax for the business year 2001 and the first and second returns for the business year 2001 cannot be made. The tax authority may make a decision of correction to correct errors, etc. in the reported contents.

(E) Upon the lapse of the exclusion period, it cannot be deemed that the head of the Gu tax office could not include the above income in the gross income, etc. for the business year 2002 and 2003 on the ground that the decision to revise the reduction of corporate tax and value-added tax cannot be made because the above income was not included in the gross income and output tax for the business year 2001.

(2) Judgment on the second argument

(A) Facts of recognition

In addition to the overall purport of pleadings as to evidence Nos. 11-1, 2, 12, 13, 14-1 through 4, and 15-1 through 7, BB engineering purchased each 9/19 of the land and buildings of this case (the completion of July 12, 1982) from EndF on August 19, 2003, and after the merger between CC Engineering and BB engineering, the Plaintiff was removed the building of this case and added the book value of the building of this case at the time of removal to the fixed asset disposal loss in the business year of 2004, and the literature integrated architect (the Plaintiff was absorbed into the land of this case on December 31, 2007) can be recognized as being paid for the registration of ownership and the preservation of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff on the land of this case after newly constructing the ground of this case and the underground floor size of 7 and the building of this case on the land of this case.

(B) Determination

After purchasing 9/19 of the instant land and the instant building on the second floor, the Plaintiff removed the instant building after about seven months from the purchase, and caused the construction of the instant building to be built on the instant land by the door-based architect office. According to this, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff purchased the shares of the instant building for the purpose of removing the building from the beginning to use only the land. Accordingly, the book value of the instant building constitutes capital expenditures on the instant land. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) Judgment on the third argument

(A) Facts of recognition

In addition to the whole purport of the pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged in each entry of Gap evidence 16, Gap evidence 18-1 through 6, and Gap evidence 19:

① Around July 3, 2006, Park E-E of the representative director of DDD intended to offer a lot of convenience as to the promotion of the project of the original state district in the future, and around August 20, 2006, when the Plaintiff was selected as a designer in the above zone, Park K-K by phoneing it to the Plaintiff’s representative director at HH hotel located in the Seoul Metropolitan Government GGGdong, so that it can be selected as a designer by talking well to the redevelopment promotion members, etc. of the original state mountain district redevelopment, etc., and around August 20, 2006.

② Since August 28, 2006, between the Plaintiff and DDR, the Plaintiff entered into a research service contract on the subject of the rearrangement project with the content that the Plaintiff would investigate and examine the status of the subject of the housing reconstruction and housing redevelopment improvement project in the Seoul metropolitan area and request services for the review.

③ On November 30, 2006, Park K-K remitted the amount of KRW 220 million (including the cost of the instant case) to the head of the Tong, a corporation Do planning, under the pretext of the service cost, etc. as the above service cost.

④ On the ground that Park Jong-K remitted the above money as above, Park K was indicted for offering of bribe, and Park Jong-dae was indicted for committing a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) in the Daegu District Court 2008Kahap134.

⑤ In the process of investigation and trial, Park K and Park E stated to the effect that the cost of the above service includes both the cost for the selected as the designer of the original district in the original district in the original district and the cost for the service of providing information on the object of the improvement project in the future.

6. Park E-E was also requesting to conduct research services on the US lecture in accordance with the above research services contract, and prepared various data collected in advance, and submitted a report on the investigation into the current status of the object of the rearrangement project, which is the service performance, to Park K-K on February 2008. Park K-K stated that the current status of the object of reconstruction, which is the content of the service performance, in the trial process, the government office data, the status of the owners and tenants, and the matters to be examined as to whether to implement the project, are not highly valuable in the design company, but it has the advantage of preparing for more time when it becomes aware of the information in advance.

7) As a result of the above judgment, ParkE received the above service costs in the position of director of the rearrangement project management body deemed as a public official and was convicted of the crime of acceptance of bribe and Park Park K on the ground that the duty relationship is recognized. However, on the grounds of the above paragraph (5) and (6), on the ground that the above investigation service contract cannot be readily concluded as the most formal contract for the acceptance of bribe from Park K, without any substance, and on the grounds that the above investigation service contract cannot be readily concluded as the most formal contract for the acceptance of bribe from Park K, and on the ground that from the above amount, the above research service contract cannot be deemed as the most formal contract for the acceptance of bribe. Of the 2200,000,000,000 won, which includes not only the price for the service that will be provided in the development district of the original salary class, but also the price for the service that will be provided in the future, it shall not be deemed as a bribe, and ParkE was pronounced not guilty.

(B) Determination

Article 19(1) and (2) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that deductible expenses shall be losses or expenses incurred in connection with the business of the corporation which are generally accepted as normal or directly related to profit, and Article 17(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8826 of Dec. 31, 2007) provides that the input tax amount for expenditures not directly related to the business shall not be deducted from the output tax amount.

According to the above facts, business relations with the pertinent business should be recognized in order to be appropriated as deductible expenses and input tax amount. According to the above facts, the cost of the instant outsourcing includes not only the amount paid as a bribe but also the cost of services related to the business, and there is no other data to specify the amount of the bribe, and there is no other data to specify the amount of the bribe, so the total cost of the instant outsourcing should be considered as business related expenses. Accordingly, the cost of the instant outsourcing should be appropriated as the input tax amount of value-added tax for the second year of 2006 and as the deductible expenses of the corporate tax for the business year of 2006, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is

(4) Sub-determination

Among each of the dispositions of this case, the imposition of value-added tax in 2003 and the imposition of corporate tax in 202, 2003, and 2004 (including the portion related toCC engineering and the part related to BB engineering) are legitimate. The imposition of value-added tax in 2006 and the imposition of corporate tax in 2006 are illegal.

Furthermore, considering the reasonable determined amount of the value-added tax for the second period in 2006 and the corporate tax for the business year 2006, the reasonable determined amount of the value-added tax for the second period in 2006 is KRW 229,837,445, and the reasonable determined amount of the corporate tax for the business year 2006 is KRW 882,438,024, there is no dispute between the parties. Therefore, the amount exceeding KRW 229,837,445, out of the imposition of the value-added tax for the second period in 2006 and the imposition of the corporate tax for the business year 945,715,964, exceeds KRW 82,438,024, out of the imposition of the amount of the corporate tax for the business year 206.

5. Determination on the ancillary claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiff's assertion

If the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2002 and 2003 against the plaintiff is legitimate, it is reasonable to pay corporate tax for the same income as to the same income of KRW 2002 and KRW 1.52 billion adjusted from the business year of 2001 to the business year of 2003. Thus, the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2002 and 2003, which cannot be compatible with the business year of 2001 to the plaintiff, must be deemed to have implicitly revoked the portion of corporate tax for the business year of 2001. Ultimately, the defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to return the above income of KRW 3.76 billion from the business year of 2001, which is reported and paid by the plaintiff without any legal cause.

B. Determination

Of the supervisory service costs of this case, the head of the Guro tax office’s determination of increase in corporate tax for the business year 2002, 2002, and 2003 from the business year 2001 to the business year 2003 cannot be deemed to have implicitly cancelled the portion of corporate tax equivalent to the above income among corporate tax for the business year 2001 reported and paid by the Plaintiff (it shall be deemed that the tax office has objectively notified its intent of revocation in order to cancel the already imposed disposition. The portion of corporate tax for the business year 2001, which is the above income, cannot be objectively known not only as a whole, but also as a part of the business year 2002 and 2003. Since the defendantro tax office could not make a decision of revocation ex officio due to the tax exclusion period for the business year 201, it is difficult to view that the former head of the Guro tax office’s revocation of the portion corresponding to the above income for the business year 201).

Furthermore, in such a case, even if the exclusion period for taxation was exceeded, in light of the fact that it can be the object of a request for correction under Article 45-2(2)4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007) (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du7006, Jan. 26, 2006), it cannot be deemed that the head of the Gu-ro tax office explicitly cancelled the portion of corporate tax for the business year 2001 by correcting the corporate tax increase for the business year 202 and 2003. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Among the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant's head of Guro Tax Office is dismissed as it is unlawful. The plaintiff's main claim against the defendant's head of Guro Tax Office is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining main claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The defendant's preliminary claim against the defendant's Republic of