Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

As to the Plaintiff, the imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2008, the imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2009, and the imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2009, and the imposition of the imposition of the corporate tax for the Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○ on June 12, 2012 by the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○○○○○○ on June 12, 2012, each of the dispositions of notifying changes in income amount to the representative director of the Plaintiff, that the remaining ○○○○○○○○○○○ is disposed of as a bonus to the Plaintiff representative director this

A. The Plaintiff is the American College Ability Test (Scastic Aptude) Preparatory Research Institute located in ○○○dong, Seoul, and SAT.

B. The director of the regional tax office of Defendant ○○○, from August 31, 201 to October 10, 201, conducted a corporate tax investigation for the business year of 2008 to 2010 with respect to the Plaintiff, Non-Party DoD (hereinafter “DD”), Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EE”) and EECE Academy (hereinafter “EE”), which is the Plaintiff’s related company, on the basis that the amount of tuition fees under the ACA Program (ACA), used by the Plaintiff differs from the reported amount of tuition fees. On October 18, 2011, the director of the regional tax office notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of corporate tax for 2008 and the imposition of corporate tax for 2009.

C. On November 22, 2011, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with this, filed a request for pre-assessment review with the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○○, and the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○○, upon which he rendered a pre-assessment review decision on January 13, 2012, and accordingly, the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○○○, upon which he conducted a re-audit against the Plaintiff from February 1, 2012 to April 16, 2012. As a result, it was determined that the amount of income on the ACA program was omitted from sales of ○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○○ on 208 year, reflecting the refund amount confirmed by the details of passbook transaction omitted in the ACA program. Accordingly, the head of the regional tax office notified Defendant ○○ of the imposition disposition pursuant thereto.

D. On June 11, 2012, according to the above notice, the head of the tax office of defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○ on the part of the plaintiff on June 11, 2012, imposed corporate tax in 2008, corporate tax in 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), ○○○○○○○○○ on the part of 2008, 2010, and ○○○○○○○ on the part of 2010, the representative director on the omission of income from 2010, and the ○○○○○○ on the part of 2010, respectively, issued a bonus disposition to this CC on the part of the representative director on the part of this ○○○○○○ on the part of 2010, and notified the change of income amount to the plaintiff.

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 18, 2013, via an objection on September 12, 2012. The bonus disposition that the Tax Tribunal made to the ○○○○○○○○○○ on January 15, 2014 to the ○○○○○○○○, which was reverted to the year 2008, revoked only the notice of change in the amount of income and dismissed the remainder of the claim (the notice of change in the amount of income that remains revoked by the Tax Tribunal). The Plaintiff appealed against this and filed the instant lawsuit on April 25, 2014.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, each entry of Eul evidence 1 through 6, the purport of all pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant disposition (2008)

The Plaintiff’s card device was still prepared in 2008. Accordingly, the Plaintiff allowed temporary affiliated companies to pay card sales using EE’s card devices, and entered the relevant amount into ACA by the Plaintiff, while allowing EE to file a tax return on the above sales and pay corporate tax accordingly. Accordingly, the part of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax for 2008 tax disposition of this case is unlawful.

2) The instant disposition (2009)

The plaintiff did not have omitted sales in 2009. Nevertheless, without any special ground, the defendant ○○ Head of the tax office deemed that the plaintiff omitted sales in 2009 and imposed the tax on the ○○○ Head of the tax office. This is unlawful.

3) The instant disposition and the notice of change in the income amount of the instant case

ACA program is merely an addition of certain financial analysis functions incidental to the management of private teaching institutes, and it is difficult to reflect the details of refund of tuition fees, 70% of the sales of ○○ Office of Education is inevitably exempted from tuition fees as sales of 'students', which is a taxable business entity. The part of the part appropriated as the sales of 'private teaching institutes' is not reflected as one which should be deducted. ACA program calculated tuition fees based on the amount of tuition fees corresponding to the number of businesses actually participated by students, not the total number of classes under the ACA program, but the ACA program included the portion of the refund of tuition fees. The ACA program included the portion of the virtual sales in order to confirm the operation of the program in the early stage of the ACA program, and the amount calculated as the amount of omission of sales is only 0.03% of the total sales revenue. Thus, the ACA program does not properly reflect the actual financial flow, so the ACA program's notice of tax change and the tax disposition of this case should be deemed unlawful.

In addition, the Plaintiff filed a tax return by cash method. In 2010, the Plaintiff deposited ○○○○○○ in the Plaintiff’s representative director’s account, which was deposited in the Plaintiff’s account, and did not deposited in the Plaintiff’s account again in 2011, and filed a tax return by recognizing it as income in 2011 according to the cash method, and paid all corporate tax accordingly. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was an omission in sales in 2010, and it cannot be deemed that it constitutes “the case where the attribution of income outflowed out of the company is unclear,” and thus, it cannot be treated as a bonus for the representative.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff operated and managed a private teaching institute using the ACA program, and the publicity materials of the ACA program are indicated as follows:

Management information system.

1. Settlement of term;

· Monthly identification of the revenue and expenditure trend of the private teaching institute

Monthly, Monthly/Period/Crewings for each processing person

and settlement of accounts / Financial Analysis / Tuition analysis

2. Records of revenue and expenditure.

Analysis of tuition fees / teaching materials / Other revenue and expenditure expenses

Function of monthly/monthly/period inquiry

· Fixed-term Settlement / Financial Analysis/ Tuition Analysis functions

3. The overall status;

Analysis of students, such as current, current, admission, and discharge.

· Possibility of sale/unpaid/Payment/Payment)

seeing the overall status of one eye;

5. Granting of authority;

and each person in charge shall be granted the authority in accordance with the business territory.

b) to check the details of deletion and change related to receipt

· the establishment of access/restrictions

6. Anti-dong.

Analysis/Comparison of the current status of operation by type and manner;

· Total income and unpaid total income /

· Inquiries by student name groups by Ban

· Doing to establish a plan to operate private teaching institutes;

8. A list of reflect payments:

· Being able to verify sales by reflect

· Being able to verify the payment history by each half form of deposit.

9. Estimated discharge.

· identification of the current status of admission/discharge by period

· Being able to verify the payment history by each half form of deposit.

The central business system shall be the system.

1. Total disposal;

· on a screen on which the main duties of the Company have been carried out.

· Confirmation of the basic personal information /

Treatment of Admission/Entry/Discharge/Release

· Individual tuition fees/tuition fees and collection management

· the settlement of accounts of the meeting of payment / the day

Provision of an admission guide / Receipt Joint Paper

2. Financial analysis;

A monthly income statement;

Monthly Revenue / Cost / Cost Ascertainment

·Confirmation of monthly sales of tuition fees

5. Processing all teaching materials;

Sale of teaching materials by half and half of each student;

· Processing from the registration of teaching materials to the sale and receipt;

Providing details of entry/exploitation and/or withdrawal;

· Inventory management of teaching materials

Additional Dong Services

2. Credit card terminals;

Services applied to a credit card terminal in linkage with ACA200 so that it can be settled by automatically recognizing the amount subject to payment on the terminal.

· Payment processing of students automatically at the same time as credit card settlement.

even a number of business operators shall be treated in a single device.

Detailed indication of the details received and processed in the receipt (the name of the class, the cost of teaching materials, etc.)

4. Virtual account:

School parents shall grant a bank account with a thickness to receive monthly tuition fees conveniently, and ACA200 shall provide a linkage service that can verify and process real-time deposit details in ACA200.

5. Online card settlement;

The function of the ACA200 system is to ensure that students/students can make payments by credit card on the website of the private teaching institute for the payment of tuition fees of the private teaching institute and that the ACA200 system can link the confirmation and receipt processing of settlement details.

6. Issuance of Cash Receipts;

The function of issuing cash receipts rapidly and conveniently at the time of receipt is to immediately issue cash receipts connected to the National Tax Service.

2) The Plaintiff was paid by credit card, deposited in the name of the representative director of the Plaintiff, or deposited in the bank account under the name of the Plaintiff, or received tuition fees by means of direct cash receipt, and when the students cancel the enrollment, it shall be handled as follows according to the settlement method:

1. Credit card settlement: If the Plaintiff requests the card company to cancel its approval through the device before the slips are purchased at a bank, etc., the card company shall be subject to the cancellation of its approval from the card company. If the slips are purchased after the purchase of the slips, the Plaintiff may request the cancellation of the transaction through the device, refund the amount deposited at the same time, and cancel its approval after receiving the refund of the price.

② Deposits without passbooks or cash receipt: The Plaintiff’s account opened in the name of the Plaintiff was withdrawn and refunded to the students.

3) According to the results of the investigation by the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○, the ACA program contains specific descriptions of students, taking courses, payment dates, payment deadline, cash, passbook-free account, card, and refund payment details. The ACA program and financial transaction details were consistent with considerable parts.

The plaintiff did not record and keep accounting books in addition to the ACA program, but received data from the ACA program periodically and stored them in the electronic file form.

4) Defendant ○○○○○ Director based on the computation of sales amount of tuition fees under the ACA program, and based on the supporting documents submitted by the Plaintiff during a reinvestigation based on the pre-assessment decision based on the pre-assessment review decision, and reflected the amount of refund not reflected in the ACA program claimed by the Plaintiff, such as the amount verified as the reported amount due to the movement of instructors by comparing the transaction details of passbook with the ACA program tuition fees in accordance with the documents submitted by

[Grounds for Recognition: The background of the above disposition and grounds for its recognition, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

D. Determination

1) Whether the part concerning the claim for revocation of corporate tax in 2009 is legitimate among the lawsuit of this case

The plaintiff seeks to revoke the disposition of imposition of corporate tax ○○○○ in 2009 through the lawsuit of this case, and ex officio determine the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit.

Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that an administrative litigation on a disposition under tax-related Acts shall not be filed without a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon. Thus, the administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of a disposition of taxation is subject to the requisite principle of administrative litigation under the Framework Act on National Taxes, unlike the discretionary principle of administrative litigation applicable to the general administrative litigation, which requires a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes. There is no evidence to recognize that the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the cancellation of the disposition of taxation on the corporate tax 2009 imposed on the plaintiff before the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case. Rather, in light of the fact that the Tax Tribunal did not mention any mention about the corporate tax 209 when determining the plaintiff's request for a judgment by entry of evidence No. 3, the part seeking the cancellation of the disposition of taxation on the corporate tax 2009 is unlawful as a requisite litigation.

2) Claim on the instant disposition (2008)

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff alleged to the effect that the disposition of this case was unlawful because the EE recognizes the sales amount settled on the card in 2008 as sales amount of the EE, an affiliated company, and reported and paid the relevant corporate tax. However, the corporate tax is calculated and assessed on the tax base. Thus, even if the Plaintiff’s business income was recognized as the business income of the EE and paid corporate tax accordingly, it cannot be said that the issue of rectifying the Plaintiff’s business income as the business income of the EE, and thereby, the Plaintiff’s duty to report and pay the relevant business income is lost. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted without any need to further examine other issues.

3) The instant disposition and the notice of change in the income amount of the instant case

A) Generally, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements exists on the taxable person. However, if the facts alleged in the facts of taxation requirements in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit are revealed, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition was an unlawful disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirements, unless the other party proves that the pertinent facts in question were not eligible for the application of the empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Nu6604, Feb. 22, 2007).

In addition, if a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite the fact of sales, the omitted sales amount shall be deemed to have been leaked to the company, and as long as the revenue of the corporation out of the company is not clear, the income of the representative shall be disposed of as a bonus. In such a case, the extraordinary circumstance that the omitted sales amount is not leaked to the company, or it is obvious that the revenue belongs to the company, must be proved by the person liable for duty payment who asserts it (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du3855, Jun. 26, 2008).

B) We examine the case back to the case in light of the above legal principles. ① The credibility of the ACA program: (a) the ACA program does not record and keep tuition fees and teaching material expenses; (b) the revenue and expenditure trend of private teaching institutes monthly can be identified in the ACA program on a monthly basis; (c) the total income and unpaid amount are included in the financial functions that can be analyzed and explained; (d) the Plaintiff actually registered class life, class subjects, payment date, payment deadline, payment method, refund details, etc. in the ACA program; (e) the Plaintiff is consistent with the Plaintiff’s transaction details; (c) the Plaintiff kept the content of the ACA program registration in the form of an electronic file with the CA program download; (d) the Plaintiff did not record and keep account books separately from the ACA program or the DCA file; (e) the problems of the ACA program program program are most asserted by the Plaintiff; and (e) the Plaintiff cannot be viewed as unlawful or defective payment of tuition fees under the ACA program or the details of tuition fees under the KCAA program agreement, which the Plaintiff did not have claimed it from the ACA program itself.

C) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff received tuition fees in 2010 from the Plaintiff’s representative director’s account to the Plaintiff’s account again in 2011, and that all of the Plaintiff reported income in 2011 according to the cash-based income method used by the Plaintiff. However, as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff received tuition fees from the students to the Plaintiff’s representative director’s account again, and transferred them to the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name. Article 40 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010); Article 71(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22577, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act”) is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s income accrued to the Plaintiff’s representative director’s account was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name for 10-year transfer of 20 years as evidence.

In addition, as seen above, insofar as it cannot be acknowledged that the tuition fees of students deposited into the Plaintiff’s representative director’s account in 2010 were transferred to the Plaintiff’s account in 2011, the omission of sales by the ○○○○○○○ (representative director BB) and the ○○○○○○ (representative director) for the year 2010 shall be deemed to be out of the company in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

4) Sub-committee

Ultimately, the part of the claim seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax 2009 among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and all of the remaining plaintiff's arguments cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax 2009 among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed. The remaining claim of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.