2. The Plaintiff’s revocation claim on the collection of wage and salary income tax from March 10, 2008 is dismissed.

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

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation operating computer program development business, etc., deducted the total amount of supply received from AAAA (hereinafter “AAA”) during the period of June 2002 from the total of 67,193,636 tax invoices of KRW 18,636, and the total amount of supply received during the period of December 2002 from 80,416,272 as an input tax invoice of KRW 17, and filed a return on the amount of purchase as an input tax for the year 1,202 and the corporate tax for the year 2002.

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s total supply value of KRW 67,193,636, which was received from AAA during the period of June 2002, 702, was a tax invoice of KRW 5,072,727, and the total supply value of KRW 80,416,272, which was received during the period of December 2002; (b) KRW 70,263,545, which was the total supply value of KRW 70,263,545, and KRW 9 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “tax invoice of this case”) was a tax invoice different from the actual supply value of KRW 30,00,000; (c) deemed that the purchase amount was non-deductible; and (d) deemed that the Plaintiff’s total supply value of KRW 12,292, value-added tax (including additional tax); and (d) was paid for KRW 30,29,201,380,29, and was not imposed.

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax for the first and second years of 2002 and the corporate tax for the business year of 2002 and the disposition of the instant collection. The part of the objection against the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax for the first and second years of 2002 and the business year of 2002 was dismissed on the ground of the lapse of the filing period, and the part of the objection against the disposition of the instant collection was dismissed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 5, 2008 on the instant collection disposition. The Plaintiff was dismissed on November 19, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Class A evidence 1-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1-4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part requesting revocation of imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax among the lawsuit in this case is legitimate

In order for the Plaintiff to file a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the first and second years of 202 and the second years of 2002, one of the request for review against the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Tax Tribunal's request for adjudication against the Tax Tribunal, and the request for review against the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Board and Inspection, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had undergone the same appellate procedure as to the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the first and second years of 2002 and the business year of 202 (limited to the Plaintiff had undergone the appellate procedure only on the collection disposition in this case). Of the lawsuit in this case, the part seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the first and second years of 202 and second years of 202 and 202

3. Determination as to the claim for revocation of the instant collection disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice in the course of actual transaction with AA, and thus, the instant tax invoice was unlawful for the instant tax collection disposition, premised on the fact that the instant tax invoice was received without actual transaction.

B. Determination

In cases where the tax authority’s disposition of income and the notice of change in the amount of income are given, the corporation that is the withholding agent shall be deemed to have paid the income to the person to whom the income recorded in the notice was given on the date of receipt of the notice of change in the amount of income, and at the same time, the liability to pay the income tax withheld is established, and the corporation that is the withholding agent bears the obligation to pay the withholding tax according to the details of the disposition of income recorded in the notice of change in the amount of income to the head of the competent tax office by the 10th day of the following month. If the person fails to pay it, the penalty should be imposed and criminal punishment should be imposed. In light of the above, the notice of change in the amount of income constitutes a tax administrative disposition that is the object of appeal by the tax authority having direct influence on the corporate tax liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du1878, Apr. 20, 2006). With respect to the existence and scope of the amount of tax withheld in accordance with the notice of change in income amount.

In the case of this case, without filing an appeal against the defendant's notice of change in the amount of income, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff paid the transaction price in cash in relation to the transaction in this case, and only the defect in the notice of change in the amount of income is not subject to the invalidation of the validity of the notice of change in the amount of income. Thus, the representative director of the AA is investigated by the tax authority on Nov. 9, 2006 on suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and stated that the tax invoice in this case is the tax invoice received without the actual transaction (Evidence No. 8). AA was accused of the suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Evidence No. 5 and No. 6). AA made a statement to the effect that the tax invoice in this case is the tax invoice in this case (Evidence No. 5 and No. 6). The plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the tax invoice in this case without any specific and objective reason is not subject to the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the tax invoice in this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax for 1 and 2 years 2002 among the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 2002 is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.