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

Defendant 00: (a) the head of a tax office’s disposition on April 1, 2013, exceeding KRW 47,624,778 of the corporate tax for the business year of 2008; (b) the portion exceeding KRW 18,042,70 of the disposition on imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2009; (c) the portion exceeding KRW 19,713,713,700 of the disposition on imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2009; and (d) the amount exceeding KRW 66,302,210 of the disposition on imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2010; and (e) the portion exceeding KRW 50,746,60 of the disposition on imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 208; and (e) the portion exceeding KRW 151,378,590 of the notice on change of income amount for the business year of 2009; (v) the portion exceeding KRW 292,21576,207857,207.7

The reasons for this judgment shall be with the exception of dismissal or addition of the following:

Therefore, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as the grounds for the judgment of the first instance.

this shall be quoted.

(1) On the 4th page, the following shall be added:

In addition, if there is a light survey by employees, the plaintiff shall request the workers of the City/Do in charge of urgency.

(1) A company shall pay in cash the costs of light surveys to be paid by urgency workers pursuant to paragraph (1) and pay them in advance.

Benefits to be paid to workers have been deducted from the next salary to be paid to them, and have been paid.

The amount equivalent to the advance payment that has been deducted shall also be included in the deductible expenses, and the plaintiff shall also include the Korean workers.

Since the payment of benefits, etc. in cash has been made, this shall also be included in the calculation of losses.

In addition, the plaintiff had no choice but to pay expenses by employing foreign workers in illegal stay. The plaintiff merely paid them in cash and did not treat them as losses.

Accordingly, it is unreasonable to demand the plaintiff to report and pay corporate tax.

It is not possible to issue a statement of payment to foreign workers in illegal stay.

The imposition of penalty tax is illegal.

Finally, the money paid for employment of foreign workers in illegal stay belongs to the representative.

The notice of change in the amount of income cannot be deemed unlawful or unclear.

(2) On the fourth side, the following shall be added:

The plaintiff shall pay congratulatory condolence expenses and benefits paid in cash to the Si-funded workers.

Party A’s Evidence No. 9-1, Party A’s Evidence No. 17, and 18 (each number)

(including) The document written inside the Plaintiff Company and the evidence alone recognize the above assertion.

any other evidence to prove it is insufficient or otherwise.

4) For the purpose of facilitating the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law

Where a taxpayer violates all kinds of obligations, such as reporting and tax payment, provided for in the Act without justifiable grounds;

A taxpayer's intentional or negligent act shall not be considered as an administrative sanction imposed pursuant to this paragraph.

(1) The land, mistake, etc. of the statute does not constitute a justifiable ground that does not constitute a breach of the duty.

v. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du4689, Nov. 13, 2002; 2002Du10780, Jun. 24, 2004).

The plaintiff asserts that the imposition of penalty tax is illegal, but the statement of payment prescribed by law is unlawful.

It cannot be said that it is unreasonable to expect the submission of documents, the fulfillment of the obligation to report and pay corporate tax.

Since the imposition of penalty tax cannot be deemed illegal, this part of the argument is without merit.

5) The revenue of a corporation that was released from the company without being entered in the account book is not clearly identified.

The tax authority, pursuant to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, shall not be obliged to dispose of the amount of bonus to the representative as a bonus. In this case, the burden of proving that the amount of such bonus is clear is against the person liable for tax payment who asserts it (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6747 delivered on August 14, 192).

The plaintiff is not subject to criminal punishment due to the illegal employment of its foreign workers;

Since there is no other proof as to the clear attribution, the payment belongs to a foreign worker.

The part that the notice of change in the amount of income was unlawful because it is not clear that the ownership has been made or belongs to it.

The argument also is without merit.

(3) The 5th page "(4)" shall be changed to "6)".

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.