2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiff ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a company established on October 1, 2002 and operated an electronic device manufacturing business at ○○○-dong 000-00, 000, 000, and closed on December 27, 2004.

B. On April 2005, the director of the regional tax office of ○○○ (the director of the regional tax office) determined that there was a doubt about the processed sales in 12 copies of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff Company (the total supply value of KRW 2,478,678,024) and notified the Defendant.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff Company, and as a result, determined that two copies (value equivalent to KRW 683,547,273) from among the sales tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff Company on △△△△△△△△△ in the first period of 2003 are processed and purchased, and separately, determined that the amount of KRW 30,00,00 among the purchase tax invoices received by the Plaintiff Company from Nonparty △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ in the first period of 2002, KRW 893,34,00,000, and KRW 3,24,745,000 in the total amount of KRW 1,918,41,00 in the purchase tax invoices received by the Plaintiff Company from Nonparty 1, 203.

D. Accordingly, on November 4, 2005, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff Company of the correction of the value-added tax of KRW 77,636,50 for 202, value-added tax of KRW 59,746,670 for 1 year 2003, value-added tax of KRW 286,572,230 for 2 year 2003, and the corporate tax of KRW 168,746,320 for 202, and corporate tax of KRW 862,036,90 for 203, respectively (hereinafter “value-added tax and corporate tax”).

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant deemed that the above processing purchase amount (including additional tax, KRW 473,00,00,000, KRW 3,096,219,500) was unclear, and disposed of as a result of recognizing it to the Plaintiff ○○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, and then sent the notice of change in income amount (hereinafter “the notice of change in income amount”) to the address of the Plaintiff ○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, around November 2005.

F. On August 1, 2006, the Defendant notified the non-party ○○○○ Head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile, and on August 1, 2006, the head of the tax office imposed and notified each of the global income tax amounting to KRW 237,734,170, and global income tax amounting to KRW 1,513,421,90 for the global income tax for the year 2002 (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing income tax”).

G. Meanwhile, on February 21, 2006, the Plaintiff Company asserted that the processing sales on Non-party 1,356,59,99 won in addition to the above 683,547,273 won, and that the amount should be deducted from the gross income in addition to the above 683,547,273 won, the Plaintiff Company filed an objection against the disposition of the value-added tax and the corporate tax of this case, but the Defendant dismissed the above objection on March 16, 2006. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Company again filed a claim with the National Tax Tribunal for an inquiry on the disposition of the value-added tax and the corporate tax of this case on June 5, 2006, and was dismissed on January 18, 2007.

H. Meanwhile, on December 27, 2004 and April 15, 2005, and December 8, 2005, the Defendant imposed the value-added tax, corporate tax, wage and salary income tax, etc., in arrears of the Plaintiff Company on three occasions on the oligopolistic shareholder, who owns 85% shares of the Plaintiff Company, as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1 to 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 to 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

A. Determination on the part of the claim by the plaintiff Han-○

Except as otherwise provided in other Acts, the administrative litigation seeking ex officio review of the legitimacy of a lawsuit, and revocation, etc. of an administrative disposition, which is the subject of the lawsuit, shall be the defendant with respect to the administrative disposition, etc., which is the subject of the lawsuit, and it is not different by the instruction or notification of a superior administrative agency or other administrative agency.

Thus, as seen above, the fact that the head of ○○ Tax Office imposed the income tax on the Plaintiff ○○ under his own name does not conflict between the parties, and thus, the lawsuit filed against the Defendant ○○○ Tax Office, who was not an administrative agency that made the disposition under his external name, with the head of ○○ Tax Office, as the Defendant, which filed the lawsuit against the Plaintiff ○○○ Tax Office.

B. Determination on the part of the claim by the plaintiff company and the plaintiff Kim ○○

(1) The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiff company and the plaintiff Kim ○, did not go through legitimate pre-trial procedure, and all of them should be dismissed. The above plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiff company had already filed an objection and filed an appeal against the disposition of the value-added tax and the corporate tax of this case, and that the notice of change in the income amount of this case was unfair, and that the plaintiff Kim ○ merely lent the plaintiff company's name as a shareholder, and that it is not a shareholder of the plaintiff company, but it is unreasonable to impose corporate tax, the value-added tax, and the labor income tax as shown in the separate disposition sheet, and thus, they are asserted to have gone through legitimate pre-trial

(2) Determination

However, in order to file a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax disposition, it must undergo a pre-trial procedure. In principle, a disposition that is the subject of an administrative appeal and a disposition that is the subject of an administrative litigation should be identical. Thus, even if there are different grounds for different dispositions, it cannot be deemed that the requirements for the transfer of other dispositions are satisfied on the ground that the different grounds for different dispositions have gone through a separate administrative appeal ruling and undergo an administrative appeal ruling on a single disposition. In other words, the so-called tax lawsuit pursuant to Articles 5 and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is excluded from the application of Article 18(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and it cannot be filed without going through the pre-trial procedure, such as a request for examination or a request for adjudgment. However, if multiple persons are liable for the same duties by the same taxation, if one of them were to have received legitimate administrative appeal, it is deemed that the disposition authority has given the opportunity to correct the inventory of the disposition. However, even if there are several types of tax dispositions in the form of a single tax disposition, if it had gone through legitimate administrative appeal, it can only be subject to a partial reduction or revocation.

However, according to the above, the imposition of the value-added tax and the corporate tax of this case by the Plaintiff Company following the pre-trial procedure is imposed on the Plaintiff Company on November 1, 2005 and November 4, 2005 on the ground that the Plaintiff Company had processed sales and processed sales, and the Defendant was imposed on the Plaintiff Company on November 1, 2005, and 1, 2003, and 2002, and corporate tax in 2003. On the other hand, the disposition disputing the lawsuit of this case by the above Plaintiffs is against the Plaintiff Company on November 2005 and the notice of the change in the amount of income in 203, and the notice of the change in the amount of income in 203, the Defendant considered the Plaintiff Kim ○ as the second taxpayer on December 27, 2004 and April 15, 2005, and the Plaintiff Company had a different possibility of imposing the corporate tax on the Plaintiff Company on the three separate grounds of the above disposition.

Ultimately, even though the Plaintiff Company had gone through the pre-trial procedure on the instant disposition of value-added tax and corporate tax, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements of the pre-trial procedure against the notice of change in the income amount of this case, which is a completely separate disposition, or the disposition of the above value-added tax against Plaintiff Kim ○○, etc. Therefore, the above Plaintiffs should undergo a separate pre-trial procedure against the above disposition. Accordingly, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful as it did not

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is all unlawful, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Details of imposition;

Date

Items of Taxation

Division of machinery

Amount

December 27, 2004

Value-added Tax

2 2003

61,087,830 won

1, 2004

287,672,910 won

2, 2004

121,919,750 won

Corporate Tax

203

21,867,010 won

204

34,233,930 won

Earned income tax

July 2004

518,170 won

August 2004

512,210 won

September 2004

496,640 won

Sub-committees

528,308,450 won

April 15, 2005

Value-added Tax

1, 2005

43,906,190 won

Earned income tax

November 2004

476,360 won

December 2004

44,560 won

Sub-committees

4,827,110 won

December 8, 2005

Value-added Tax

2, 2002

67,970,740 won

1, 2003

52,308,200 won

2 2003

250,893,970 won

Corporate Tax

202

147,737,390 won

203

754,713,290 won

Sub-committees

1,273,623,590 won

Total System

1,846,759,150 won

Relevant statutes

Corporate Tax Act

In filing a report on the tax base of corporate tax on income for each business year pursuant to the provisions of Article 60 or in determining or revising the tax base of corporate tax pursuant to the provisions of Article 66 or 69, the amount included in gross income shall be disposed of as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company, internal reservation, etc. according to the person to whom it belongs as prescribed by Presidential Decree

Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006)

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment of Contributors)

(1) Where the property of a corporation (excluding a corporation whose stocks are listed on the Korea Stock Exchange) is insufficient to cover the national tax, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears that the corporation has imposed on or is to pay, the person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs as of the date on which the liability to pay national taxes is established shall assume secondary tax liability for such shortage: Provided, That in the case of an oligopolistic stockholder under subparagraph 2, the limit shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the amount calculated by dividing the shortage by the total number of stocks issued (excluding non-voting stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or total amount of investment of the corporation by the number of stocks owned by the oligopolistic stockholder (excluding non-voting stocks) or investment amount (in the

1. General partners;

2. An oligopolistic stockholder who falls under any of the following items:

(a) A person who exercises a substantial right over the stocks or investment shares in excess of 51/100 of the total issued stocks or total investments of the relevant corporation;

(b) An honorary chairperson, chairperson, president, vice president, senior managing director, managing director, director, or any other person who actually controls the management of the corporation, notwithstanding the title thereof;

(c) The spouse (including the person in de facto marital relations) of the persons under items (a) and (b) and the lineal ascendants and descendants sharing their living

(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1) 2, the term “excess stockholder” means a person who is a relative or has other special relations with a stockholder or partner with limited liability as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the total sum of his stocks or investment is 51/100 or more of the total number of stocks issued or total amount of investment made by the juristic person concerned (hereinafter referred to as “excess stockholder

Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax

Article 192 (Fictitious Payment Date of Dividend, Prize and Other Incomes Obtained by Disposal of Income)

(1) When the head of a tax office or the director of a regional tax office determines or revises the corporate income amount under the Corporate Tax Act, he/she shall notify the corporation concerned by a notice on change of income amount as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy within 15 days from the date of the determination or correction of the corporate income amount: Provided, That where the location of the corporation concerned is not clear or it is impossible to serve the notice, or where the corporation concerned falls under Article 86 (1) 1, 2 and 4 of the National Tax Collection Act, he/she shall notify the relevant stockholder and the resident who is subject to the disposition of the relevant bonus or other income.