2. On January 2, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of each of the second value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff on the part of the OOO(including the additional tax) and the OOO(including the additional tax) among the OOO(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The reasoning for this Court’s opinion concerning this case is as follows: (a) it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment.

2. The part to be mard;

A. Paragraph (c) of Article 1

C. Accordingly, on January 2, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the value-added tax amount for the second period of value-added tax (including additional tax amount, and the amount calculated by subtracting the already paid tax amount from the already paid amount amount of OOOOO won in the total of OOO won in principal tax and additional tax OOO won) and the corporate tax for the business year 2001 (including additional tax OOO won, the principal tax OO won and additional tax OO won less the amount calculated by subtracting the already paid amount of OOOO and the initially determined tax amount of OOOOO won from the initial amount of OOO won) (hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b) the part of Article 2-2-4(d)(3) of the Act.

3) Whether exclusion is dismissed or not

Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6782, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter the same) provides that the limitation period for the imposition of national taxes shall be ten years from the date on which the national taxes may be imposed if the national taxes are evaded, refunded, or deducted by fraudulent or other unlawful means; subparagraph 2 provides that the taxpayer shall be seven years from the date on which the national taxes may be imposed if the taxpayer fails to file a tax base return within the statutory due date of return; and subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 26-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6782, Dec. 18,

“The legislative purpose of Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is to extend the exclusion period for taxation on national taxes to 10 years because it is difficult for the National Tax Service to find out that there was an omission of taxation or a false fact, and thus, it is difficult for the National Tax Service to expect the exercise of the imposition right. Therefore, the term “Fraud and other unlawful acts under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes” refers to a fraudulent act which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose taxes or collect taxes, and it does not constitute an unlawful act of not simply imposing taxes under tax law or filing a false tax return (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du767, Dec. 12, 2013). In addition, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to receive tax evasion or exemption under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes by deeming that there was a false tax evasion or exemption period for taxation on national taxes imposed by the National Tax Service.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful because it is apparent that five years of exclusion period has elapsed after the lapse of five years of exclusion period of imposition. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition.