2. The plaintiff answers the costs of lawsuit.

A. The Plaintiff, a juristic person established for the purpose of Changho Construction, etc., received a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 80,000,000 in total, and KRW 20,000,000 in the second taxable period of the year 2003 from ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. during the first taxable period of the year 2003, and completed a corporate tax return for the business year 2003 by appropriating the total amount of the above tax invoice (hereinafter the issue purchase amount in this case) to the Defendant as deductible expenses, and appropriating the amount of KRW 15,60,000 in total, and 14,40,000 in total, KRW 37,50,000 in total, including KRW 7,500,00 in the account book.

B. Accordingly, on July 16, 2005, the Defendant deemed that the tax invoice of this case was issued without a real transaction as an enterprise for which the above ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd filed a complaint on data, and thus, issued the tax invoice of this case, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of corporate tax of KRW 18,752,330 for the business year 2003 (hereinafter the instant disposition).

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff did not dispute that the tax invoice received from ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. is the processed tax invoice, but paid KRW 107,50,000 to ○○○○ in the business year 2003, totaling KRW 32,168,418,00, and KRW 327,500,000, which is the sum of KRW 37,500,000 in the account book, should be included in the deductible expenses for the business year in the above business year, and accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case which did not reach this point is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) In a lawsuit seeking revocation on the grounds of illegality of taxation disposition, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement fact. Thus, the tax authority in principle bears the burden of proving the amount of expenses to be included in deductible expenses, which serve as the basis for determining the amount of income as the corporate tax base. However, in a case where the taxpayer asserts that some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer are actual expenses or is false or that the reported amount was spent for other expenses of the same amount, the taxpayer must prove the existence and amount of other expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu9283, May 23, 1995; 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 4, 5-1, 5-2, 7-2, and 8 of the evidence Nos. 3-1, 5-1, 6, 7-1, 2, and 8 of the evidence Nos. 3-1, 7-2, and 8, the Plaintiff shall transfer total of KRW 49,850,000 to ○○○○, a worker of the Plaintiff, for a year 2003, and shall transfer total of KRW 25,40,000 to ○○, a worker of the same employee, as a deposit passbook of this○○, and shall transfer KRW 32,168,000 to ○○, an employee of the same employee, as a deposit passbook of ○○○.

However, in light of not only the amount of each benefit under the labor contract, the account statement, and the account transfer amount are considerably different, but also the account transfer statement is not a rule, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff actually paid the above difference as payment solely on the basis of the above recognition. The testimony by the witness ○○ and Lee○○○ is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case based on the contents of the plaintiff's account books is lawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.