A. Imposition of global income tax of KRW 90,374,314,620 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on May 27, 2010;

B. The Defendant limited on June 28, 2010 to the Plaintiff:

(1) each imposition of global income tax of KRW 60,482,80,330 (including additional taxes), global income tax of KRW 1,294,675,570 (including additional taxes) of 2007;

(2) Of the imposition disposition of global income tax of KRW 29,060,587,350 (including additional tax), KRW 10,824,49,486, global income tax of KRW 14,165,51,580 (including additional tax), among the imposition disposition of KRW 7,156,259,402, global income tax of KRW 1,540 (including additional tax), KRW 1,540,583,250 (including additional tax), among the imposition disposition of KRW 82,93,628, global income tax of KRW 69,351,770 (including additional tax), KRW 21,769,567, global income tax of KRW 205, global income tax of KRW 14,561,586,980 (including additional tax), the imposition disposition of global income tax of KRW 2636,297,206,2797,20967,2797,27949,207,207

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

C. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 1/10 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of 90,374,314,620 (including additional taxes) imposed on the Plaintiff on May 27, 2010 and the Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of 60,482,80,330 (including additional taxes), global income tax of 2001, global income tax of 290, and of 29,060,587,350 (including additional taxes), global income tax of 14,165,51,840 (including additional taxes), global income tax of 2002, global income tax of 1540,583,250 (including global income tax), global income tax of 203, global income tax of 1,540,583,250 (including global income tax), global income tax of 69,770,700, global income tax of 207, 2085, 2067, 2097, 20657, 2967, 794, 75

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

1) The part of the first instance judgment against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2) The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 14,165,51,840 of global income tax in 2002 (including additional taxes), KRW 956,80 of global income tax in 2002, KRW 1,540,58,00 of global income tax in 203, KRW 822,93,628 of global income tax in 2003, KRW 693,628 of global income tax in 2004, KRW 69,351,770 of global income tax in 2004, KRW 21,769,567 of global income tax in 204, KRW 1,076,203,420 of global income tax in 206, KRW 234,361 of global income tax in 208, KRW 38,793,940 of global income tax in 2008, KRW 394,5194 (including additional tax).20

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

The reasons stated in this part are as follows, except for amendments as follows, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 3, 4, to 6, 11) is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

In ○○ 4, Section 1-2(b)(5) of Section 1-5(b), the term “” means “a corporation established in BVI,” and the term “BVI corporation.”

○ 6 pages 4 "69,351,228 won" shall be "69,351,770 won".

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The reasons stated in this part are as follows, except for amendments as follows, the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 6, 13 to 11, 16) is as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 8 pages 15 and last parallels are as follows.

【5) As to the dividend income received from Gundo International and MOA

① Nonparty 7 was actually holding 25% of the shares of Gundo HK and Gundo International, and thus, it cannot be deemed that Nonparty 7’s dividend income was reverted to the Plaintiff.

② The Plaintiff donated MOA shares held in the name of Nonparty 1, etc. torest, an intermediary holding company, and was in control of the property of New Holdings via Quuter, the highest holding company, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have held the title trust of the MOA shares in the Cre.

③ Dividend dividends from 2002 to 2006 of the Gundo International’s dividends, from 2003 to 2006, were paid out some of the sales amount related to Haak-gu’s Haak-gu’s Haak-gu’s Haak-gu’s Haak-gu’s Haak-gu’s Haak-gu’s Haak-gu’s Haak-gu’s Haak-gu’s Haak-gu’s

From 00 to 12 parallels, 00 to 9 parallels are as follows:

[7] As to the dividend income received from the Open Forest Technology Corporation

Core Capital is established in 199, which the Plaintiff was a resident of the United States, and its substance is recognized, and the trustor becomes Core Capital in the title trust agreement, and both the purchase price of the shares and the payment of new shares in the Open Tech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “heat Tech”) were paid out of the funds of Core Capital. As such, Core Capital is deemed to have trusted the shares of the Open Tech to Nonparty 4 in title trust. Accordingly, the dividend that Nonparty 4 received from the Open Tech belongs to Core.

Even if the substance of Core Capital is denied, it shall be deemed as a shareholder, even if the substance of Core Capital is denied.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached statutes of the first instance judgment shall be as specified in the relevant statutes.

4. Facts of recognition;

The reasons for this part are as follows, except for amendments as follows, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 11 to 55 pages 2 to 7) is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff at the last 11th place of the 11th place shall add "the plaintiff was registered as a resident in Gangdong-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) on December 18, 1982, and shall add "the plaintiff."

○ 12 pages 4 to 13 are as follows.

(2) (2) Around 192, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea with his family (her wife, Nonparty 8, Nonparty 9 (date of birth 1 omitted), Nonparty 10 (date of birth 2 omitted), and Nonparty 11 (date of birth 3 omitted) and resided in the United States of America. On June 4, 1992, the Plaintiff returned to the Republic of Korea only and returned to the United States on February 14, 1993, and returned to the Republic of Korea and the United States. The Plaintiff and his family members acquired U.S. citizenship around July 1997, and the remainder of the family members except the Plaintiff acquired the U.S. citizenship around October 202.

(3) The status of Plaintiff’s children’s attending school around 1998 to 2000 is as follows.

Nonparty 9(Chn’s St. Jhn’s Schatory Schatol on September 1995 to June 1999, Nonparty 10 (A) to June 2003, 199 to September 9 through June 2003, Nonparty 10 (A) Sclickol on September 9, 1997 to June 2001, at the location of the school division in the head of the voting division, Nonparty 11(C) of the U.S. on September 2001 from September 200 to June 2006, 199.

[Judgment]

○ 12 pages 14, 15 are as follows:

4) The number of days of stay in the Republic of Korea and the United States of America, the number of days of stay in the Republic of Korea and the number of days of stay in the Republic of Korea of the Plaintiff and Nonparty 8 (one member of his family is the number of days of stay in the Republic of Korea, and the days of stay in the family

In ○ 13, the number of family members and the number of days of their stay in the table shall be advanced as follows, and the family member's period of stay in the table shall be added to the table:

The number of days in the text of the Table ‘Family and the number of days of sojourned ‘(unit)', as well as the total number of marrieds in 2001 and 2002, the total sum of marrieds in 1998, 200 and 63 (46) 181 24476 (20) 206 206 28241 (11) 261 261302 1788 17843260 26059 US 108 (108) 008 78 (78) 54 (54) 2604 240 240 2640 * the number of days in which the plaintiff's family members had not been able to stay together.

The period of stay in Korea < by Presidential Decree No. 10720, Nov. 19, 199; Presidential Decree No. 18851, Feb. 1, 1999; Presidential Decree No. 1870, Feb. 21, 1999; Presidential Decree No. 18820, Feb. 1, 1999; Presidential Decree No. 18820, Feb. 1999; Presidential Decree No. 18201, Feb. 1, 1999; Presidential Decree No. 18204, Feb. 1999; Presidential Decree No. 18201, Feb. 21, 1999; Presidential Decree No. 17201, Feb. 20, 1999; Presidential Decree No. 221001, Feb. 21, 200; Presidential Decree No. 2220651, Aug. 21, 2018>

○ 13 pages 13 the Plaintiff’s annual report on global income is added as follows.

The Plaintiff reported 1995 US$ 175,662,924 196 348,728,596,872,723 1998 2,225,440,610,614 (1) 6,033,546,569 102,431 (2) 2000,439,399,315,909 108,136 (3) 2019,373,049, 205, 207,3740, 205, 205, 2039, 2045, 206, 305, 204, 206, 305, 204, 204, 206, 305, 204, 2014

○ From 13 up to 5 pages up to the end shall be as follows:

[6] (6) The plaintiff owned each house in the joint name with the non-party 8, "(name 2 omitted)" (name 3 omitted until May 29, 197) and "(name 3 omitted)" (name 15, July 31, 2001). The non-party 8 owned the house located in the name of the non-party 8 (name 4 omitted).

○ 14 pages 14 " was obtained" as follows.

【Acquisitiond, 199, and 200, a considerable amount of financial assets were held as listed below.

On December 9, 1999, the bank account number balance (US$ 1111, 0376 7125 242, 989.11 November 30, 1989, US$ 19021989 620,85.49 October 31, 1999, Norweal Bank 699-12609 15, 879, 7879, 24, 24, 2007, 24, 2000, 1037, 10376, 257, 264, 205, 36, 196.4, 199

[Judgment]

○ 16 pages 2 in front of the “16 May 21, 1996” and “7 August 27, 1997,” each of the “10% of the shares of a corporation established by the Plaintiff in Hong Kong is the Plaintiff, and the actual owner of the shares shall be the Plaintiff,” respectively.

On the upper part of the 18th page, the third third, the fourth, from the left side, the “Leaway 100%” means “100% of Leaway 100%” on July 9, 2013.

In the upper part of the 18th page, "(2)" shall be raised as follows.

【(2) Some of the BVI corporations were resolved by the Struk Off (if the annual registration fee or additional dues are not paid, the registry office deleted the company’s trade name from the company registry in accordance with the BVI Company Act) as follows. BVI corporations are allowed only to proceed with the legal procedure commenced before the Struk listed, and if the Struk listed is terminated, the Struk listed is deemed not to have existed.)

○○ 18 pages “3.12, 2009.12” on the left side below the top of the lower part of the table is “hesting as “hesting on Nov. 2, 2009”. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23948, May 29, 2013>

The upper part of the 19th page "Fast Vantage and Ninealth" as "Fast Vst, Ninealth, Quter, and Virtual Capital" under the 3th section below the upper part.

○ 21 1 to 3 Happed as follows.

3) (3) Gundo HK and Gundo International (hereinafter referred to as “ Hong Kong corporations”) reported only the sum of the amounts equivalent to 0.2% or 0.3% of the actual sales from around 1999 to 2002, and 0.6% to 0.9% of the purchase amount to the Hong Kong tax authority in the name of export brokerage commission, and transferred 11% of the remainder of the sales to the accounts in the name of Quter and Virtual Capital under the name of the audit commission, 4% of the sales and inspection commission, as follows. The said remittance was drafted a false monthly settlement of accounts, total sum of the sales commission or audit fee paid by the Hong Kong corporations to BVI corporations, as shown in the following subparagraphs.

○ 22 On the upper part of the upper part of the 5th, on the left side, the 1st column “ September 29, 2009” shall be read as “ September 29, 2008.”

○ 24 pages “(h)” shall be raised as follows:

(h) Dividend, etc. from Gundo HK and Gundo International

(1) From 1999 to 2003, Gundo HK and Gundo International distributed a total of KRW 8,907,102,255 to shareholders as follows.

The Plaintiff, in the table (unit: Won) year included in the main text, in 2009, 1,552,682,685,755 2,461,360,650,657,657,800,000 2,235,253,250,508,907,102,2508,907,102,255 shareholders: Nonparty 14,999: Nonparty 2: 14,99,1 week (based on August 26, 200), and the fiscal exchange rate of 1) at the time of distribution, and the fiscal exchange rate of 235,53,507,107,102,255 shareholders: Nonparty 3: Nonparty 14, 14,99: 2:1 week (based on August 27, 200) (based on August 27, 200).

(2) The “examination related to the change of the business structure” in Nonparty 12’s “Review” refers to the following issues: financing, business structure, relationship with customers, sales price adjustment, expenses, etc.; the burden of tax in Korea following the Gundo International Liquidation and the establishment of a new legal entity; the method of operating the new legal entity after the establishment of the new legal entity; and the protection of the former Hong Kong legal entity and the part of the reduction of the tax

The upper part of the 27th page shall be deleted from the 2nd page "130 to the 5th page" of the 2nd page.

○ From the bottom of the 29th page to the 30th 1st 1st 1st c.

○ 49.On the 11th page, the following shall be added:

【Monthly Settlement Data” includes 17 items, including the total amount of expenses, including sales, purchase, net profit, interest income, total amount of revenue, sales commission (BVIs transferred to a BVI corporation), total amount of profit, and the amount recoverable out of the total amount of profit. This is based on the fact that Nonparty 1 received data arranged by Nonparty 13 on the basis of account books from Nonparty 13 and delivered them.

○ 49 pages below the 49 table "170 billion won" shall be raised to "17 billion won".

○ 51. From the 4th page “At present” to the 5th page “ever”, the following shall apply:

【이에 대하여 검사가 서울고등법원 2012노594호 로 항소하였는바, 위 법원은 이 사건 공소사실은 i) 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(조세) 및 조세범 처벌법 위반의 점과 ii) 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(재산국외도피)의 점으로 구분되고, 위 i)은 다시 ⓐ 홍콩 현지법인을 이용한 소득 탈루, ⓑ 홍콩 현지법인 차명주주 배당소득 탈루, ⓒ 페이퍼컴퍼니 명의 계좌에서 발생한 예금 이자소득 탈루, ⓓ 스위스 비밀계좌에서 발생한 예금 이자소득 탈루, ⓔ 페이퍼컴퍼니 명의로 발생한 대여금 이자소득 탈루, ⓕ 페이퍼컴퍼니 명의로 국내투자조합에 투자하여 발생한 배당소득 탈루, ⓖ 페이퍼컴퍼니 명의로 취득한 비상장주식에 대한 배당소득 탈루로 그 포탈의 유형이 구분되어 있는데, 검사가 2012. 2. 13. 제1심판결 전부에 대하여 불복하는 항소장을 제출하면서도 항소이유서 제출기간 만료일인 2012. 3. 19.까지 그 항소이유로 위 i)의 ⓐ 부분과 ii) 부분에 관하여서만 항소이유를 기재하였고, 항소심 제12회 공판기일에 이르러 위 ii)부분에 관하여 예비적 공소사실을 추가하는 내용의 공소장 변경신청을 하였다는 이유로, 그 심판범위를 위 i)의 ⓐ 및 ii) 부분과 항소심에서 추가된 예비적 공소사실 부분으로 한정한 다음, 위 i)의 ⓐ 부분 중 2001년 및 2002년 과세연도 부분에 대하여 유죄로 인정하고, ii) 부분과 항소심에서 추가된 예비적 공소사실 부분에 대하여는 무죄로 인정하여 판결하였다. 이에 대하여 원고와 검사가 모두 상고하였다( 대법원 2014도9026 ).】

○ 55 pages 3 to 7 [based grounds for recognition] add “Evidence 9, 123, 124, 126 to 131, and Evidence B Nos. 119, 137.”

5. Determination on residents (each global income tax of 1999, 2000);

The reasons stated in this part are as follows, and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment (from 55, 9, to 65, 9) is identical with that stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for those making an additional determination as set forth in Paragraph (b).

A. The modified part

From the 55 side to the 3rd "work", a "work" shall be called "a person working".

○○ 56 pages 56 add “The Plaintiff has a resident registration in Korea since he had a resident registration in Gangdong-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) on December 18, 1982.”

○ 57 side 7 pages “after establishment” shall be considered as “the substantial operator and interest.”

After the 00th 60th 12th 12th "," this provision adds "this provision is the same as the priority criteria for the family relationship among the criteria for determining whether a person who has a family has a family to determine an additional and independent criteria for the determination of a permanent residence, and this criteria is particularly the criteria for determining a permanent residence."

○ 60 pages 14, “the requirement of “living together with a family” means “the requirement of “living together with a family”.

○ 61 3 pages. The following shall be added to:

【(C) As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s permanent residence exists in the Republic of Korea, even though the definition of “place where the Plaintiff resides together with his/her family” is stipulated in the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, but the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty should not be interpreted differently from the OECD Model Convention or any other tax treaty. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s permanent residence exists in the Republic of Korea, if it is based on the permanent use and continuous availability of the said Convention, which is a residential recognition requirement.

However, the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, unlike the OECD Model Convention or the tax treaty that Korea has entered into with another country, defines permanent residence as “place where a person resides with his family”. In light of the fact that the Korea-U.S. and France, where the definition provision of permanent residence exists separately, and the Korea-U.S. and Belgium Tax Treaty deleted such definition provision at the time of the amendment, the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, insofar as the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty specifically provides for the definition provision, it shall not be treated as disregarding the provision, nor be treated as the same as the case where there is no such provision. This provision should be regarded as a special provision on the determination of permanent residence in the case of an individual who

○ 61, page 11, “Plaintiffs” up to 18 “settlement”, shall be as follows:

【The Plaintiff purchased a house in the joint name with Nonparty 8 and resided with his family members from May 15, 1997 to July 31, 2001. On October 16, 1997, the Plaintiff established a U.S. corporation (Pax Stock Holdings Inc.) for the purpose of real estate leasing business, and subsequently acquired a rent for a commercial building. The Plaintiff owned a considerable amount of financial assets. The Plaintiff was in possession of Paul mpolisol (Paul) on December 3, 1992. The Plaintiff was in 10 years old and 20 days old and 10 days old and 10 days old and 10 days old and 20 days old and 10 days old and 20 days old and 10 days old and 10 days old and 10 days old and 20 days old and 10 days old and 10 days old and 20 days old and 10 days old and 10 days old and 20 days old and 10 days old and 9 days old and the Plaintiff entered Korea.

○ 62 up to six parallels “(b)” through “(f)” of 62 parallels are as follows:

【(B) In light of the fact that the number of days brought by the Defendant together with his family was 41, 200 in Korea, 1999, 41, 2000, and there is no big difference in comparison with the US 1999, 78, 2000, and 54, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have had a permanent residence in Korea and the United States, or there may be no permanent residence in any other place. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no permanent residence in one country.

○ 62, 13, and 16, shall be advanced as follows:

In addition, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is a domestic resident for the above period, since there exists "the center of significant interest" in the year 1999 and 2000 pursuant to Article 3 (2) (b) of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, based on the Korea-U.S. Mutual Agreement (Evidence No. 51) and the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty (Evidence No. 51), the plaintiff is a domestic resident for the above period.

However, according to Article 3 (2) of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, the standard of “the key point of interest” is the secondary standard applied to cases where a residence is not recognized, and the mutual agreement between the contracting parties is the most last used in the determination of the place of residence. As seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the said mutual agreement has any legal effect, given that the said mutual agreement has already been determined in the U.S. as a dual resident of Korea and the U.S. according to the prior criteria. Furthermore, considering the fact that the said mutual agreement is not bound by this court, and that the U.S. National Tax Service reserveds the right to resume mutual agreement at the time of the said mutual agreement, the above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

○ 65, 65, 600''' are advanced as follows:

【Exceptional reservation clause in light of the purpose, etc. of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, only Article 4(4) of the Korea-U.S. Tax Convention (hereinafter “Korea-U.S. Tax Convention”) does not generally exclude the application of deemed resident provisions under Articles 3(3) and 4(1), and if so,

B. Additional determination

1) Whether a permanent residence is determined by mutual agreement between Korea and the United States tax authorities

The defendant asserts that the Republic of Korea and the United States of America concluded a general mutual agreement for more clear interpretation of the criteria for determining the residence country of an individual under Article 3 of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, and that the individual actually resided with one or more family members during the taxable period, there is a permanent residence in two countries. Therefore, the plaintiff's permanent residence is both in Korea and the United States.

However, the term "place where the plaintiff is living together with one or more family members" means a place where the other family members actually live while living in Korea in 1999 and in 2000 only temporarily and individually visited the plaintiff and other family members for the period of vacation, etc., while the United States is a ground for the plaintiff's actual living in Korea with his family, even though according to the contents of the above mutual agreement, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's permanent residence exists in Korea. In light of the interpretation of Article 3 (2) of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, as long as the plaintiff cannot be seen as a domestic resident, it cannot be a legal ground for recognizing other contents differently from the contents of the treaty, and there is no ground for deeming that the same applies retroactively to the establishment of tax liability in 199 and 2000. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the place of economic activity is permanent residence

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff's livelihood is the most liable for family's livelihood and the remaining family's livelihood is the same as that of "alery" engaged in economic activities in other countries, the country in which the other family, other than the place where the plaintiff's income is generated, shall not be considered as a permanent residence.

However, since the Plaintiff was staying in Korea as a business and had a residence with his family returned to the United States after the completion of his business, it differs from the facts that the first family living together with his family is in Korea, such as the case of the “rout” asserted by the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3) Whether the U.S. period of stay is calculated lawful

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff did not use an airport located in the Nurina region where his family lives in Korea and the United States after March 2000, the period of stay shall not exceed 54 days since he could not be determined to have lived with his family within the period of stay in the United States in 2000.

However, according to the court's fact-finding, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as a fact-finding mainly using the Oraeae Airport which is an adjacent airport in the U.S. residence at the time of entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea in 1999 and 2000. Thus, the defendant's above assertion different from the above facts and premise is without merit.

6. Determination on omission of income (each global income tax, 200 through 2008).

The reasons stated in this part are as follows, except for amendments as follows, the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (from 65, 11 to 90, 11) is as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 68, 12, 72, and 4 of the parallel are as follows:

【2) Each global income tax of 2001, 2002

(A) Relevant regulations and legal principles

The former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter “Income Tax Act”) lists the taxable income under Articles 3, 4, and 16 through 22 as income only for the income generated from sources in Korea (Article 3), and only for the income generated from sources in Korea, the taxable income is limited by classifying it into interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, business income, wage, temporary property income, pension income, other income, retirement income, capital gains, forestry income, etc. Accordingly, the income other than the specific type of income listed in the Income Tax Act shall be excluded from the taxable income even if it has the capacity to pay the income. However, in the case of the income (Article 16(1)13), dividend income (Article 17(1)7), the income not listed in the Income Tax Act shall be treated as similar income, and the comprehensive method of taxation by type of the relevant income is applied.

Meanwhile, Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8831 of Dec. 31, 2007) provides that "the amount included in the calculation standard of corporate tax in the calculation or correction of the corporate tax shall be disposed of as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company, or internal reservation according to the person to whom it belongs, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 106 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17826 of Dec. 30, 2002) provides the specific method of disposal of income. Where it is obvious that the amount included in the calculation of earnings has leaked out of the company, it shall be deemed that the amount included in the calculation of earnings has been disposed of as dividends, bonuses from the disposal of profits, other income, or other outflow from the company according to the person to whom it belongs, but where it is unclear, it shall be deemed that the amount included in the calculation of earnings has been reverted to the representative or the actual manager who actually controls the operation of the corporation without demanding strict proof by the tax authority.

In full view of the contents and purport of the above provisions of the Income Tax Act and the corporate tax Act, even if certain income is not listed as taxable income under the Income Tax Act, which was enforced at the time of the occurrence of such income, its actual nature constitutes the type of income under the Income Tax Act, i.e., earned income or dividend income, etc., if it is revealed that the actual owner of such income is the income subject to taxation. The taxation on the income of the person to whom the income belongs should first be conducted through the means of disposal of income, and the taxation may be conducted by the means of direct taxation by proving the actual ownership of the income. Since the income of a foreign corporation in a foreign country can not be conducted by the tax authorities under the Corporate Tax Act on the income generated from the foreign country, the income generated from the foreign country shall be deemed to fall under taxable income in cases where the actual nature of the income falls under the type of income such as earned income under the Income Tax Act and dividend income, even if the actual owner of such income is identified. Therefore, in order to be lawful on the ground that the income accrued to the representative, etc.

In addition, Article 17 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that "the income similar to the income under subparagraphs 1 through 6 which has the nature of profit distribution" in subparagraph 7 shall be comprehensively defined as "the amount disposed of as a dividend under the Corporate Tax Act" under subparagraph 4, subparagraph 6 and "the dividend or distribution of profits or a surplus received from a foreign corporation, and the interest dividends or dividends of a similar nature" under the relevant foreign laws and regulations, and subparagraph 2 of Article 17 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that "the dividend or distribution of profits or a surplus received from a foreign corporation, and the interest dividends or dividends of a similar nature. In cases where the income of a corporation is distributed out of the corporation as a representative's income, the issue of whether the income falls under any kind of income under the Income Tax Act shall be determined in principle by taking into account the payer and the person to whom it reverts, the basic legal relations between the person to whom it reverts, the amount of income, and the circumstances leading to the attribution of the income (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu4566, Dec. 26, 1990).

(b) Whether the money remitted by the Hong Kong corporations to BVI corporations belongs to the actual state and its subject;

Examining the following circumstances revealed in light of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the money remitted from Hong Kong corporations as BVI corporations was actually reverted to the Plaintiff as the income out of the company.

① The Plaintiff is a single shareholder who owns 100% shares of the Hong Kong corporations, and is also a single shareholder who owns 100% shares, either directly or by mediating a legal entity, with respect to BVI corporations whose money is deposited under the said fee.

② In 199 to 2002, the Plaintiff filed a report on the sum of the amounts equivalent to 0.2% or0.3% of the actual sales amount, and 0.6% or 0.9% of the purchase amount to the Hong Kong tax authority under the name of the export brokerage commission. Of the remaining sales, 11% of the remaining sales was remitted to the accounts of Quuuter and Virtual Capital under the name of the audit commission.

③ There is no transactional relationship between Hong Kong and BVI corporations that form the basis for the receipt of money under the above fee, and the said money is not received according to the independent interest or transaction needs of BVI corporations, but merely is the income of the Hong Kong corporations that was transferred under the false pretext of making the sales of the Hong Kong corporations not disclosed externally.

④ There is no evidence that Hong Kong corporation requested the return of the said money to BVI corporation, that the said money was returned to Hong Kong corporation, or that it was used for the interest of Hong Kong corporation.

⑤ The Plaintiff, as a single shareholder holding 10% shares of Hong Kong corporations, held the right to withdraw the said money from the account held in the name of BVI corporations, and the remittance was made according to the Plaintiff’s intent. As such, the Plaintiff’s substance of the transaction following the said remittance is deemed to have withdrawn the said money from the Hong Kong corporations and deposited the said money into BVI corporations.

6) The Plaintiff did not impose any restrictions on the withdrawal and management of the money deposited in the account of the BVI corporation due to the Plaintiff’s legal obligation to report and the company’s internal control procedures, etc., in addition to the Plaintiff’s signature, and there is no evidence to deem that the money deposited as above is subject to restrictions on its use according to the purpose of the establishment of the BVI corporation.

7) As long as the Plaintiff withdrawn the money from the Hong Kong corporations and deposited the said money into the BVI corporations, this does not have any substantial difference between the Plaintiff and the transfer of the said money to another person’s account after the Plaintiff first reverted the said money, and thus, the said money belongs to the Plaintiff, and is irrelevant to whether the said money is recognized as a corporate entity of the BVI corporations or whether it is recognized as a trade entity independent of the shareholder or a person to whom income accrued (i.e., the said money belongs to the Plaintiff, and not

④ At the time of the National Tax Service’s tax investigation, the Plaintiff also stated in the letter of confirmation that “the place registered as the seat of multiple pagescomer did not hold all business activities, such as business activities or decision-making, and did not hold a board of directors, a general meeting of shareholders, or a meeting of similar management, etc. in the operation or major decision-making of each of the above corporations. The subject of investment decision-making conducted in the name of BVI corporations, etc. is only the Plaintiff, and the actual owner of 100% shares of BVI corporations, such as Quter and Virtual Capital, were the Plaintiff’s income that belongs to the Plaintiff, and these corporations were part of the Plaintiff’s business, property, and bank account (the confirmation date of April 9, 2010, and the confirmation date of the same month).”

9) Even if the said money was released from the Hong Kong corporation and was final reverted to BVI corporation, unless there exists any justifiable transactional relationship between the Hong Kong corporation and BVI corporation, the last attribution is a clear premise that the said money would have been mediating the Plaintiff’s prior attribution to the Plaintiff who led the transaction. Thus, the last attribution to BVI corporation cannot be a ground for rejecting the Plaintiff’s attribution to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, there is no relationship between whether to impose corporate tax on the said money after the last attribution to the Hong Kong corporation, whether to impose dividend income on the Plaintiff at the time of dividend, and whether the said money belongs to the Plaintiff in advance, and thus, the said money is reserved to the Hong Kong corporation, and there is no basis for denying the Plaintiff’s prior attribution to the said money.

(C) Whether the amount transferred to BVI constitutes dividend income

Examining the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings in light of the relevant provisions and legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the money remitted from Hong Kong corporations as BVI fees is the dividend income reverted to the Plaintiff as the actual shareholder of the Hong Kong corporations, as stipulated in Article 17(1) of the Income Tax Act.

① The Plaintiff, as a de facto shareholder who actually owns 100% of the shares of the Hong Kong corporations, withdrawn a certain amount of money equivalent to 1% of the actual monthly sales from the Hong Kong corporations with the intent of hiding the sales revenue of the Hong Kong corporations, and remitted the money to BVI corporations. The said money was calculated on the basis of the profits calculated based on the sales revenue, purchase amount, general management expenses, interest income, etc. of the Hong Kong corporations, and was set monthly amount by calculating all the amount, expenses, etc. to be reserved to the Hong Kong corporations. The said amount was brought in advance to prevent taxable income of the Hong Kong corporations

② The money transferred from the Hong Kong corporations to the account of the Hong Kong corporations was released from the company without any transactional relationship, and thereafter, it later belongs to the Hong Kong corporations or was used for the business purpose of the Hong Kong corporations.

③ AVI corporation has no legal title to obtain the said money, and the said money was deposited in accordance with the direction of the Plaintiff, and the right to withdraw the said money was entirely the Plaintiff.

④ As long as the Plaintiff had the intent to conceal the sales revenue of Hong Kong corporation, the said money may be deemed to have been finally reverted to the Plaintiff from the time of transfer. Therefore, the other party to payment from the standpoint of Hong Kong corporation is the Plaintiff. Therefore, the nature of the income ought to be deemed as at the time when the said money reverted to the Plaintiff. As such, the circumstances after the said money was deposited into the Plaintiff cannot be the data for determination of the type of the said income (the taxation under Article 17(1) of the International Tax Adjustment Act is a matter of taxation on the income accrued to the said corporation after the Plaintiff reverted to the Plaintiff, since the said money was deposited into the BVI corporation).

⑤ Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1059, 1066 Decided July 9, 2004 rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 32(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), which was rendered in a situation in which it is impossible to impose the income reverted to shareholders as deemed income by the disposal of income in the manner of deemed income by the disposal of income. However, the legal principle of the above decision is a matter of interpretation as to Article 17 of the Income Tax Act, regardless of the provisions on the disposal of income under the Corporate Tax Act, the case where the above provision is applied according to the principle of substantial taxation, and there are no grounds to deem that the above precedents were abolished.

(6) Article 17(1)6 of the Income Tax Act only provides that “the dividends received from a foreign corporation” shall be deemed “the dividends that have been received from the foreign corporation,” and there is no content for dividends that have been resolved at the general meeting of shareholders under the law. Article 17(2) of the Income Tax Act provides that a corporation does not pay cash, stocks, etc. in the form of dividends to its shareholders, where economic benefits such as dividends are granted even if the corporation does not pay dividends; as long as the corporation’s interests are distributed to its shareholders even if the dividends are in force under the Commercial Act, the corporation has substantial nature of dividend income; “gains” under Article 17(1)6 of the Income Tax Act refers to the amount of net assets of the company on the balance sheet exceeds the total amount of its capital and legal reserve; “ earned surplus” means only dividends if there is no profit but also dividends if there is no profit. In light of the fact that a foreign corporation’s dividends are legally demanded by the tax authority to determine whether dividends were paid to its shareholders pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s dividends are legitimate dividends are limited to 17.

7) Furthermore, in light of the economic aspect of taxable income, taxable income is deemed to have a taxable capacity to control and manage the profit in reality, and it is sufficient to determine that there is such a taxable capacity, and the legal assessment of the causal relation to which the income was derived does not necessarily have to be lawful and effective. Therefore, even if illegal income from criminal act is illegal, unless a measure to return to the person to whom it was attributed is not taken, this constitutes taxable income (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu758, Nov. 10, 1995, etc.). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act of remitting the sales of the Hong Kong corporation to the account of the Hong Kong corporation cannot be deemed to have excluded the transferred money from taxable income solely on the ground that the act of the Plaintiff’s remittance of the sales to the account of the Hong Kong corporation is “illegal outflow”

(8) Even if the Plaintiff’s act of remitting the sales of Hong Kong corporation’s Hong Kong corporation’s account is “Embezzlement”, the Plaintiff’s actual shareholder of Hong Kong corporation may be fully exempted from liability for damages arising from his/her embezzlement based on his/her own intent. Therefore, such profit may ultimately be reverted to himself/herself.

(C) Sub-determination

Therefore, it is clear that the money that the Plaintiff transferred from Hong Kong corporations in 2001 and 2002 as a BVI corporation was out of the Hong Kong corporation as a BVI, that the amount was actually reverted to the Plaintiff, a shareholder, and the income accrued therefrom is actually deemed as dividend income. Therefore, the said money is subject to global income tax for the Plaintiff.

In the 72th chapter 72, “BVI corporation” is deemed to be “BVI corporation and LO corporation (hereinafter “BVI corporation”)”, and in the 72th page 9 through 90 portion, “BVI corporation” is deemed to be all “BVI corporation, such as BVI.”

○ 76 2nd to 6th 2nd 1st am as follows.

【The exceptional circumstances as seen earlier, such as the case where the PC, which is a corporation, such as BVI, derived from the purpose of tax evasion, should be proved in order to view that it is only the nominal nominal owner of income. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff established a corporation, such as BVI, and engaged in financial transactions for the investment purpose rather than the purpose of tax avoidance. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot deny the substantive subject of the act of the corporation, such as BVI, and the income should be deemed to have

○ 76 pages 11 to 13, and deletion of the contents of the proposal.

In addition, the part of the 81th page 81 to 5 “I” is that “this fact alone does not deny the status of the beneficial owner of the income of the corporation, such as BVI.”

○ 84 below the 3rd, 85th 1st Gundo International is called “Gundo HK, Gundo International.”

○○ 85 pages 88 and 9 “The Plaintiff’s statement: The Plaintiff’s statement” part is as follows.

2. The Plaintiff’s confirmation and statement: in the confirmation document prepared by the Seoul Regional Tax Office on April 29, 2010, the Plaintiff received and used the entire dividend in relation to the Gundo International in 2002 and 2003, regardless of the shareholders in the name of the company at the time of paying the dividend, and Nonparty 1, etc., who is the holder of the title to receive the dividend, confirmed that it is next name)

○○ 86 pages 1, “Maintenance” shall be considered as “Maintenance”.

○ 86 pages 11, “The title trust of shares can be made not only by individuals but also by corporations” are as follows.

【The title trust of shares can be conducted not only by individuals, but also by corporations, and even if the subject of income attribution is an independent business entity, the specific shares may be a title trustee, and thus, their two positions are not compatible (the Plaintiff donated the Plaintiff’s shares held in the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3, but the Plaintiff did not submit objective data related thereto. Thus, it is natural to deem that the title trust relationship between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3 was changed to the title trust relationship between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 3)

○ 87 pages 7, "MOA" in the 7th Mrest.

○ 87 pages 11 to 13 are as follows: “However, the Plaintiff began to assert only when he was under criminal trial whether he was not mentioning the cost of home-based service or rebates at the time of the first investigation of the Seoul Regional Tax Office.”

【However, the Plaintiff only stated that the dividends paid in cash at the time of the first investigation of the Seoul Regional Tax Office were used to contact the customer abroad, and it was brought to the Defendant only under criminal trial whether the Plaintiff did not mention the expenses for contact or rebates.】

○○ 87 below and thereafter, the phrase “a statement” added to the phrase “a statement that, on August 29, 2013, the tax authorities of the United States asked that no record consistent with the fact that the person received the cost of contact from the Hong Kong corporation cannot be found” (No. 139 Certificate).

Preier Group and Halcyon's interest income paid to the above SPC by guiding 90 pages 5, "The corporate tax is normally withheld and paid (Evidence A No. 47 No. 47 No. 1, 2)."

○ 90 pages 10 “,” Nonparty 4 and Bench,” respectively, are called “(Core Capital borrowed only the name of the Plaintiff) and Nonparty 4.”

7. Determination on the exclusion period

The reasons stated in this part are as follows, except for amendments as follows, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 90 to 97 pages 13 to 5) is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

○ 90, 13 to 92, 13, 92, are as follows:

A. Relevant regulations and legal principles

According to Article 26-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7359, Jan. 5, 2005; hereinafter the same), national taxes shall not be imposed after five years from the date on which they can be imposed ( Subparagraph 3): Provided, That where a taxpayer evades national taxes or obtains refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, ten years ( Subparagraph 1) may not be imposed after the expiration of seven years ( Subparagraph 2), and where a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return within the statutory due date of return, dispositions taken after the expiration of the exclusion period of national tax imposition shall be null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du109522, Dec. 23, 2010; 200Du101430, Dec. 14, 201). Whether the pertinent method of imposition of national taxes and other unlawful means of taxation can be determined as acts enabling tax evasion, i.e.,, acts deemed unlawful by social norms or other unlawful acts, and it does not constitute an unlawful or unlawful acts under other tax laws.

In addition, even if income is obtained by disguised title, if the act is not related to the tax evasion, it cannot be deemed as “Fraud or other unlawful act” under Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes solely on the basis of the nominal name. However, if the nominal name comes from the purpose of tax evasion, such as avoidance of progressive tax rates, diversification of income, application of special exemption and reduction, use of the name of insolvent person who does not pay taxes, etc. Furthermore, if active acts such as the preparation of a false sales contract and the false payment thereof, false return of capital gains tax, false registration, false registration and record, and preparation and keeping of a false account book, etc. are added, it constitutes “Fraud or other unlawful act” which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du7667, Dec. 12, 2013, etc.).

In addition, a deposit account in another person's name was deposited and used as a borrowed account. However, it does not necessarily mean that a specific act is committed regardless of the motive, circumstance, etc. of the act, or that it is an active act of concealing income. However, in addition to a failure to report a taxable object or underreporting, a false entry in a book, an exchange of means of payment, such as check, etc., or other concealment acts, it is included in the act of hiding a borrowed account, or in the act of depositing a borrowed account, it may be recognized that a tax is impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes in addition to the circumstances showing active intent, such as where the deposit in another borrowed account is distributed to several places, or where the deposit in another borrowed account is repeated or made in succession due to a special relationship with the nominal owner even if it is made one time (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do667, Apr. 9, 199).

(b) Dividend income acquired as a shareholder of the Hong Kong corporations (the amount remitted to the BVI corporations);

Examining the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings in light of the relevant legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s act of remitting money from the Hong Kong corporations to BVI corporations constitutes “Fraud or other unlawful act.”

① Although the money remitted by the Hong Kong corporations to BVI corporations is the actual dividend income attributed to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff prepared a false monthly account settlement data and total income ledger with the content of treating the said money as “sale and inspection fees” or “audit fees” paid by the Hong Kong corporations to BVI corporations (as long as these data reflects false sales and inspection fees and audit fees as they are, it is apparent that the content is different from the actual content). As such, inasmuch as the Plaintiff had made a processing transaction from the beginning and remitted money as if it were to pay false service charges to the false transaction parties, it should be deemed that there was the purpose of tax evasion when remitting was remitted from the Hong Kong corporations as BVI corporations.

② After remitting money in a false manner, the Plaintiff intentionally omitted the said money and reported only about 1% of the actual sales amount as sales. In preparing an audit report and a tax return stating such details, the Plaintiff actively concealed the amount of dividend income that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive from the Hong Kong corporations.

③ The Plaintiff transferred money to the account of not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff under the false and fraudulent pretext to the account of not the Plaintiff and created a false appearance, such as the transfer to which the said money belongs to the BVI, making it difficult for the tax authority of Korea to know the fact that the said money belongs to the Plaintiff.

④ As long as the BVI corporation is a foreign corporation, and the money deposited in the account was disguised as if it were reverted to the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff individual, the Korean tax authority’s position to impose the global income tax on the Plaintiff seems to have become more difficult to find the actual owner of the said income due to the above remittance.

⑤ Even if the Plaintiff’s liability to pay corporate tax of Hong Kong corporations was mitigated in the course of the Plaintiff’s act as above, or where part of the intent to operate a stable business was included in the process of returning Hong Kong, it is clear that the above act was committed from outside, including the tax authorities, in order to make it difficult to identify the Plaintiff’s income from the outside, and as long as the occurrence of the consequence that the imposition and collection of tax considerably difficult, the above additional circumstance does not constitute a ground for rejecting that the above additional circumstance is “Fraud or other unlawful act.”

6) As long as the Plaintiff remitted the said money under the disguised name without any justifiable transaction with BVI corporation, the purpose of tax evasion shall be determined on the basis of the time and name of withdrawal and remittance of the said money. The issue of whether to impose tax on BVI corporations ought to be separately seen. As such, the determination on whether the said withdrawal and remittance constitute “Fraud or other unlawful act” cannot be the basis for determining whether the said withdrawal and remittance constitute “Fraud or other unlawful act” (see, e.g., Article 17(1) of the International Tax Adjustment Act, since the taxation under the said provision is irrelevant to the instant case, even if the real name of the stockholder of the BVI corporation is the fact that there is no problem of taxation on the deemed dividend income in the determination on “Fraud or other unlawful act” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3148, Apr. 1, 201).

7) In the event that the Plaintiff reserved the income of the Hong Kong corporations as it is, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff did not have any intent to evade taxes solely on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any intent to evade taxes, as long as the Plaintiff leaked the income in order to reduce the liability to pay corporate tax of the Hong Kong corporations, and could have been expected to establish domestic income tax liability due to such divulgence.

(8) Where deemed income amount is taxed by mediating the disposition of income with respect to an abnormal outflow from the company, such as embezzlement, etc., the amount of income shall be deemed income amount generated by the "Fraud or other unlawful act" pursuant to Article 9-2 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010) and thus, the crime of evasion of income tax or unlawful act that could have anticipated the disposition of income is not recognized, unlike the fact that the disposition of this case was made by deeming the outflow from the company of Hong Kong as the Plaintiff's income amount due to actual attribution, and thus, the determination of "Fraud or other unlawful act" should be deemed as the basis for the existence and degree of active concealment of actual income.

(9) Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s series of acts of preparing accounting books by reducing the sales of Hong Kong corporations and remitting actual profits to BVI corporations under the pretext of processing the said remittance clearly is false, it cannot be deemed as “amount arising from the difference between the tax accounting and corporate accounting” excluded from the amount of fraudulent income under Article 9-2 subparag. 1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed as “Fraud or other unlawful act” on the grounds of the accounting difference in the above provision.

(c) Interest income from the Hong Kong account in the name of the Pester, and interest income and dividend income from the Switzerland bank confidential account;

(1) Application to corporations, such as BVI

○ 92, the 16th to 18th parallels are as follows:

【However, the above circumstances are merely issues that arise when the Plaintiff transfers the funds of Hong Kong corporations to BVI corporations, and the interest income and dividend income of the Hong Kong corporations themselves can be viewed as having committed fraud or other unlawful act against the Plaintiff, as seen in the following (2).

○ 93 pages 8 through 93, “BVI Corporation” in the part below 2, is replaced by “BVI corporation, etc.”.

The number of pages 93 below is as follows: “(3)”; “(2)”; “(3)”; “(3)”; “(4)”; “(4)”; “(4)”; “(3)”; “(5)”; and “(6)” of the last 96 shall be converted in sequence into “(d)”, “ma.” and “f.”.

○ 94 3 to 11 shall be deleted, and 94 94 12 , 95 , 8 , 95 , 5 , 96 , 5 , 5 , 10 , 10 , 10 , 20 , 20 , 20 , 20 , 20 , and 3.

○ 95's last 95's "I am," and "I am," it is difficult to grasp the plaintiff's income as a tax authority because corporate governance has changed several times."

○ 96, 12, and 2, as follows:

However, since the essence of the return and additional tax is only the form of tax, it is imposed in order to secure the obligation to report and pay the principal tax in good faith, and the obligation to pay the principal tax can be confirmed, so it can be seen that the taxpayer has the subsidiary nature of the principal tax. As such, as the purpose of the report and additional tax is to secure the obligation by imposing sanctions when failing to pay the principal tax, it is possible to impose the return and additional tax on the taxpayer without filing a report on the principal tax or when failing to pay the reported tax voluntarily, it is consistent with the purport of the additional tax, so the exclusion period of imposition of the return and additional tax cannot be shorter than the principal tax; the Framework Act on National Taxes was amended by Act No. 10405 on December 27, 2010, Article 26-2 (1) 1-2 provides that "The exclusion period of additional tax is applied to those who do not have the obligation to pay the principal tax in an unlawful way, it is reasonable to view that the period of exclusion period of imposition of the principal tax should be applied differently from the period of imposition of the principal tax.

○ 1 to 5 parallels on the surface of 97 are as follows:

【The exclusion period of global income tax prior to the 2003 anniversary of the dividend income acquired as a shareholder of the Hong Kong corporation, the dividend income in 2001, 10 years of the exclusion period of imposition of dividend income in 2002, 202 to 2004 received in the name of the second shareholder, and 10 years of the exclusion period of imposition of dividend income in 2004, and the remaining income is applied in 5 years of the exclusion period of imposition of dividend income in the name of the second shareholder. However, the global income tax in 2004 is subject to a lawsuit only for increased portion, and the exclusion period of increase except for dividend income received in the name of the second shareholder) has expired.

8. Judgment on the defects in the imposition of additional tax (additional tax on each global income tax, 199 through 2008).

The reasoning for this part is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this Court is as follows: (b) the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment (from 97, 7, to 98, 11, respectively) is the same with that of the said part (from 97, 97, 7, and 98, 11, and 20, respectively; and (c) thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

9. Scope of revocation.

(1) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition, whether the tax base and tax amount notified by the tax authority are objectively existing, and where the tax base and tax amount recognized by the disposition are excessive compared to the legitimate tax base and tax amount, the disposition of imposition is unlawful within the scope exceeding the lawful tax base and tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6504, Mar. 28, 1989).

② As seen earlier, i) the dividend income in 1999 and 2000, which was acquired as a shareholder of the Hong Kong corporations, is not subject to the imposition of global income tax, but ii) the interest and dividend income (interest income from Hong Kong account in the name of Switzerland, Switzerland bank confidential interest income and dividend income, ship investment interest income and dividend income from domestic investment associations) by BVI corporations, were reverted to BVI corporations, or for whom five years have passed from the exclusion period of imposition, and iii) the dividend income in 1999, 200, which was received in the name of the next shareholder, was not subject to the imposition of global income tax, or five years have passed from the exclusion period of imposition, and iv) the imposition of global income tax in 199 through 208 is unlawful, and thus each global income tax and additional tax should be revoked in entirety.

③) The global income tax shall be imposed on financial income of KRW 162,191,539, 200, 12,420,000 as the Plaintiff recognized in 200, 2002 through 2006, 2008, 2008 under the name of the second-class shareholder, 3) the interest income under the name of the second-class shareholder, 4) the Plaintiff acquired as a shareholder of the Hong Kong corporations, and the global income tax shall be imposed on financial income of KRW 162,191,539, 2006, 12,420,000, and the penalty tax shall be calculated by deducting the amount of justifiable tax from the “tax calculation sheet” as shown in attached Table 1 (the amount of global income tax assessed in 2005 shall be calculated by deducting the amount of tax assessed in excess of KRW 52,659,601, as the Plaintiff sought revocation within the scope of a legitimate tax amount).

(4) As such, the imposition of global income tax of KRW 90,374,314,620 (including additional tax), KRW 60,482, KRW 257, KRW 2078, KRW 2975, KRW 2068, KRW 4675, KRW 2068, KRW 2797, KRW 2057, KRW 2797, KRW 2068, KRW 2975, KRW 2068, KRW 4757, KRW 2967, KRW 2067, KRW 2057, KRW 2967, KRW 967, KRW 2586, KRW 206, KRW 257, KRW 4967, KRW 257, KRW 2965, KRW 206, KRW 5797, KRW 2596, KRW 2597, KRW 2975, KRW 2965, KRW 2947,57545

○ 108-122 pages 108-122, attached Form 2 “Additional Parts of Related Acts and subordinate statutes” shall be added to the “Related Acts and subordinate statutes.”

10. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted as follows: 90,374,314,620 won of global income tax in 1999 (including additional taxes); 60,482,80,330 won of global income tax in 200; 1,294,675,570 won of global income tax in 2007; and 29,060,587,350 won of global income tax in 2001 (including additional taxes); 10,824,497,486; 14,165,51,840 won of global income tax in 202 (including additional taxes); 7,156,259,2767,767,79,769,769,767,79, and 209,79,205 of global income tax in 209 (including additional taxes); and

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Poscopic fever (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The original disposition is the amount added to the notice on June 28, 2010 from the original disposition. Since the disposition of increase or decrease is a disposition of increase or decrease, it is urgent that “the amount exceeding 22,346,069 won out of the disposition of imposition of KRW 91,69,842,” but it is as stated by the Plaintiff.

Note 2) The Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6557 of Dec. 31, 2001) that applies to income tax for the year 2001 only subparagraphs 1 through 6 without a comprehensive provision of subparagraph 7.