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

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition taken by the Defendant on August 7, 2012 against the Plaintiff on the global income tax of 2006, global income tax of 2007, global income tax of 2008, global income tax of 2008, and global income tax of 009 shall be revoked.

(1) The injured party BB (hereinafter referred to as “B”) is an individual entrepreneur who operates the precision ofCC on or around May 190, 190, and the Plaintiff is a person who enters the precision ofCC from July 1994 to June 2009 and has overall control over the business, such as manufacture, supply, management of passbook, issuance of bills, and execution of funds.” (b) The Plaintiff requested the parties toCC to issue a false tax invoice without supply of goods or services, and then, based on such false tax invoice, the Plaintiff received the difference between the price and the actual supply price, and then received from 0O or 2O or 2O or 20O or 2O or 7O or 2O or 2O or 7O or 2O or 2O or 4O or 2O or 2O or 2, or 202, or more.

"After that, on November 4, 201, the Plaintiff was convicted of occupational breach of trust by the Daejeon High Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2010No542, 201No272 (Merger), hereinafter referred to as the "criminal judgment of this case"). The Plaintiff appealed against this, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, and the criminal judgment of this case became final and conclusive as it is," and the Defendant was notified of this fact as other income of the Plaintiff, while investigating the personal income tax on B from October 24, 201 to November 11, 201, while investigating the personal income tax of the Plaintiff from 203 to 2009.

F. Accordingly, on August 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received additional income of the Plaintiff from the above OOOO in 2006, 2007, OOOO in 2008, 2009, OOOOO in 2009, and OOOO; (b) based on Article 80 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same), based on Article 80 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 201; hereinafter the same), the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on global income tax for the year 2006, global income tax for the year 2007, global income tax for the year 2008, global income tax for the year 209, and global income tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant appeal”).

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, Gap's 1, 2, and Eul's 1 through 5 (including each number for which there is a number); the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Illegal imposed without income

In the instant criminal judgment, the amount recognized as the amount of breach of trust in the instant criminal judgment was not used by the Plaintiff, but used for the NV operating expenses. Since the Plaintiff did not obtain substantial benefits, the instant disposition that imposed income tax by deeming the amount of breach of trust recognized in the instant criminal judgment as the Plaintiff’s income is unlawful.

2) Mistake in determining the subject of income

HanB received the deposit from the above OB, filed a lawsuit claiming damages exceeding the OOO members, and took measures for preservation of provisional seizure, etc. The Plaintiff’s breach of trust is all the Plaintiff’s income, and the other party to the disposition imposing income tax is not BB, not the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful as it goes against the principle of substantial taxation.

B. Determination

1) As to the allegation of illegality imposed without income

On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff used the OOO as operating expenses of the precision, and instead, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 3, the Plaintiff asserted to the same effect in the proceedings of the criminal judgment of this case, but it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff was found guilty due to rejection of such assertion. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

2) As to the wrong determination of the subject of income

Income subject to taxation under the Income Tax Act is an income subject to taxation, if it is deemed that there is a tax-bearing force because it is deemed that there is a tax-bearing force in view of the economic aspect, and it is sufficient to determine that there is a tax-bearing force, and the legal evaluation of the causal relationship in which the income is obtained is lawful and effective. Thus, even if an illegal income is generated from a criminal act, if the income does not return it to the original reversion, it constitutes an income subject to taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du431, May 10, 2002). On the other hand, even if an illegal income is repaid after the establishment of income tax liability, it cannot affect the global income tax liability already accrued (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du324, Sept. 14, 201).

In accordance with the above legal principles, as long as the amount of breach of trust that the Plaintiff did not return to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant disposition exceeds the OOOB, the instant disposition is legitimate, and even if the BB after the instant disposition collects the amount of breach of trust from the Plaintiff, it cannot affect the Plaintiff’s global income tax payment obligation. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.