Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2. The appeal cost (including the cost resulting from the supplementary participation) shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The plaintiff's argument that the court has newly made a decision is identical to the part concerning the reason for the decision of the court of first instance except for the additional determination as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

the 6th page 18. The sum of the amounts referred to in the 18th chapter shall be the sum of the amounts.

The 10th parallel 6th parallel '○○○-gun' is called '○○-gun ○○○○○○○○○'.

10 Ham the 11st dong as joint 'Dong'

The first instance court convicted the Plaintiff on September 7, 2017, on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (at present, ○○ District Court 2012,000, continuing to proceed to a trial by the High Court 2012,000, excluding the part of the exclusion from the imposition of value-added tax on the Plaintiff’s business establishment in which the statute of limitations has expired), and prosecuted the Plaintiff on charges of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (2012, High Court 2233). The Plaintiff at each of the above criminal cases discussed that “the instant business establishment was the actual operator of the Plaintiff, who was the former husband, and he did not participate in the act of tax evasion.” On March 1, 2018, the first instance court sentenced the Plaintiff to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the Plaintiff and for a fine of one year and 300,000,000 won.”

Part 15 below, 16 '3' below, '4 '4', '16 '16 '3', of the 15 15

3) Determination and determination in the decision of the same related case where the issue is the same

A) On January 3, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing value-added tax and global income tax on the Plaintiff. On this basis, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the said disposition with the ○○ District Court 2013Guhap000, asserting that the Intervenor had actually operated each of the above businesses.

Trade Name (Name)

Items of Taxation

Taxation Period

Amount of tax (source)

F

Value-added Tax

2, 2006

35,349,480

1 2007.1

82,953,800

207.2

28,225,400

F

Value-added Tax

207.2

50,683,120

1008.1

90,576,900

208.2

73,150,310

AA 000

Value-added Tax

209. 1

19,597,690

209.2

16,883,970

2010. 1

6,604,370

2010. 2

10,133,140

2011. 1

6,349,450

Reversion to the year 2006

2,266,560

Reversion to the year 2007

9,172,380

208 Reversion of year 2008

121,716,500

209 Reversion

34,918,710

201 Reversion of the year 2010

41,160,240

guidance.

719,742,020

B) On this issue, the court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s assertion and sentenced the revocation of the above disposition, and the Defendant appealed as 2014Nu0000. The court revoked the first instance judgment on July 2, 2015 and rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. In other words, the Plaintiff appealed as 2015du0000, but the said appellate judgment became final and conclusive on November 12, 2015.

C) On the grounds of various circumstances in its holding as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff independently operated or jointly operated the said FF or AA00 business place with the Intervenor. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff is a joint actual business operator with the Intervenor and each of the above business places, the said appellate court determined that the disposition imposing global income tax on the Plaintiff was lawful, as long as the income amount of each of the above business places was almost distributed to the Plaintiff,

2. The addition;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since some of the sales revenue omitted from each place of business of this case were used as business expenses, taxation cannot be imposed on the business expense portion, and even if the remaining sales revenue omitted was leaked to others, so long as it is unclear as to whether it belongs to the Plaintiff, the taxation disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) In full view of the purport of each of the statements in Eul-B evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant imposed the comprehensive income tax of this case on the remainder of the business expenses of this case on the aggregate of KRW 3,711,585,000 among the business expenses of this case (2009 and year 2010) and KRW 2,260,90,000 among the business expenses of this case, and KRW 1,108,095,00 among the omitted sales ofCC (2010), and KRW 1,482,00 among the omitted sales of this case (year 2008 and year 2009) and the omitted sales of AA (year 2008 and year 2009). According to the plaintiff's assertion that there was no further tax omission on each of the above business expenses of this case, the plaintiff's assertion that there was no additional tax omission on each of the above business expenses of this case.

2) Furthermore, since the sales omitted from each of the instant workplaces had already been deemed to have been attributed to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s remaining assertion on a different premise is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.