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

A. The Plaintiff, as a stock company with online information provision business, credit information credit investigation business, etc. as its business purpose, omitted sales proceeds of KRW 142,723,749 (hereinafter “instant key amount”) sold to ○○○○○○○○, Inc. during the business year 2004.

B. On June 30, 2005, the Plaintiff did not recover the above issue amount to the Defendant, and did not receive the above issue amount from the Defendant under the tax adjustment, and then filed the first revised return on the corporate tax to be reverted to the business year 2004 (hereinafter “the first revised return”).

C. On March 7, 2006, the Plaintiff lent KRW 142,833,750, including the key amount of this case, to the Defendant, from the representative director of the Plaintiff company to the ○○○○, but was recovered on March 6, 2006 (hereinafter “the second revised return”).

D. On June 1, 2006, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s second revised return, and disposed of the amount equivalent to the issue amount of this case as bonus to the Plaintiff’s representative director, and then imposed a disposition imposing KRW 33,112,290 on the Plaintiff, who is the withholding agent, for the year 2004 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The plaintiff raised an objection on September 4, 2006, but the above objection was dismissed on October 26 of the same year. The plaintiff again filed a national tax appeal on January 29, 2007, but the above claim for adjudication was dismissed on May 29 of the same year.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 4-6, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant argues that the disposition of this case is legitimate, because the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's correction in advance and the amount of the outflow from the company was included in the calculation of earnings, because it constitutes the proviso of Article 106 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and the plaintiff voluntarily discovered the fact that the issue amount of this case was omitted in sales, and voluntarily reported the first revised return. In the process of examining the transfer from the existing tax agent to another tax agent's business, the plaintiff confirmed the fact that the above issue amount was not actually recovered and collected in full, and then the second revised return was filed. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful since it constitutes the disposition of internal reservation in case where the plaintiff illegally recovered sales omission amount and reported it to be included in the gross income by tax adjustment

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On June 30, 2005, the Plaintiff did not receive the issue amount of the instant case out of the company from the Defendant and received the disposition of income of the retained earnings in the calculation of earnings, and then filed the first revised return on the corporate tax to be reverted to the 2004 business year.

(2) At the time of the first revised return, the Defendant recognized the fact that the issue amount of this case was not recovered, and requested the Plaintiff to vindicate it by telephone on February 2006. On February 28, 2006, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a copy of the Plaintiff’s head of ○○ Bank (former ○○ Bank, Account Number: 302-*************; hereinafter referred to as “the head of ○○ Bank in the name of the Plaintiff”) by facsimile. As a result, the Defendant confirmed that the issue amount of this case was not recovered within the company.

(3) On March 3, 2006, the Defendant sent a notice of taxation notice to the Plaintiff’s representative director ○○ at the time of the first declaration of modification on the ground that the Plaintiff did not recover the key amount at the time of the first declaration of modification and disposed of the retained earnings. The notice was served on the Plaintiff on March 10, 206.

(4) At the time, ○○○○○ deposited KRW 142,83,750, including the key amount in this case, into the account in the name of the Plaintiff. On the following day, the Plaintiff deposited the key amount in the account in the name of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff made a second revised return with the content that ○○ was recovered after lending the key amount in this case to the Defendant by short term.

[Identification Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 3, Evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) The key issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff collected the amount of the issue of this case leaked to society with prior knowledge of the Defendant’s corrective disposition, and the second revised return constitutes the proviso of Article 106(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

(2) According to the main sentence of Article 106(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, where a domestic corporation collects illegally flown money, such as sales omission and processing expenses, within the period for filing a revised return under Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and files a report by including it in gross income as tax adjustment, the disposal of income shall be deemed as internal reserve. According to the proviso of the same paragraph, the same shall not apply to cases where a correction is made in the calculation of gross income, such as where it receives a notice of tax investigation or becomes aware of the commencement of a tax investigation in advance. Here, "the case where it receives a notice of tax investigation or becomes aware of the commencement of a tax investigation" is merely an example of the case where it becomes aware of the correction in advance of the tax office's correction, and even if the domestic corporation does not necessarily know of the correction in advance through

(3) As to the instant case, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff did not recover the key amount and added the first revised report to gross income, and the Defendant recognized the fact that the key amount of the instant case was not recovered and demanded the Plaintiff to explain whether the first revised report was recovered by telephone around February 28, 2006, the Plaintiff sent a copy of the passbook in the name of the Plaintiff to the Defendant by facsimile as to the instant request on February 28, 2006, and later, the second revised report was filed on the following day after receiving the instant key amount from the Plaintiff’s representative director o to the account in the Plaintiff’s name, and then recovered the instant key amount after lending it to the aboveo. In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was aware that the instant key amount was not a second revised report with the knowledge that it was unfairly released from the Plaintiff, but a second revised report was made with the Defendant’s prior knowledge of the instant disposition upon the Defendant’s request for explanation, etc.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.