In 202, the Plaintiff cannot process the cost of the instant tax invoice on behalf of the Plaintiff for reasons such as failure to receive the tax invoice even though the Plaintiff actually paid the advertising cost, personnel expenses, commodities cost, and technical service cost as follows. Accordingly, each of the following money must be included in the deductible expenses for the Plaintiff’s actual expenses incurred by the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the instant disposition should be revoked because it is unlawful for the Plaintiff to exclude it from the deductible expenses and to regard it as an amount of money, the ownership of which is unclear because it was leaked to the Si.

(1) The advertising expenses paid to △△△△△ (the representative director thisAA, hereinafter referred to as △△△△△△△), which is KRW 79,500,000.

② 31,659,400 won in total, which was paid to LeeB, KimCC, and ParkD as wages or retirement consolation benefits to the Plaintiff (i.e., 10,500,000 won in retirement benefits to the NAB, and retirement consolation benefits of 7,00,000 + 12,467,000 won in the amount of benefits of KimCC + 1,692,400 won in the amount of benefits of NAD)

(3) Goods price of KRW 9,906,000 paid to △ business Co., Ltd.

④ 주식회사 ♧♧션 대표이사 김EE에게 지급한 기술용역료 3,600,000원

B. Determination

1) The tax authority has the burden of proving the legality of disposition and the existence of the tax requirement fact in a lawsuit seeking revocation on the grounds of illegality of taxation, so the burden of proving the amount of expenses to be included in deductible expenses, which are the basis of determining the income amount of corporate tax, is also the tax authority in principle. However, in cases where the tax authority proves that some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer were false or that some of the expenses was falsely prepared without real transactions, or the taxpayer's own declared amount was falsely required for other expenses of the same amount, the taxpayer should be deemed to have the burden of proving that it is easy for the taxpayer to present books and documents, such as books and evidence, as regards the existence and amount of other expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu5816, Oct. 28, 1994; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 209).

2) As to advertising costs and personnel expenses claim (the plaintiff's claim ①, ②)

(a)a fact of recognition;

(1) Payment portion of advertising expenses

In around 202, the Plaintiff entered into an advertisement agency agreement with △△△ Broadcasting to vicariously run the advertisement of 20 million won in total for 120,000 won per week on the Plaintiff’s products. At the request of △△△ representative director from June 24, 2002 to September 30, 2002, the Plaintiff paid the advertising expenses of 126 million won in total to the account in the name of a corporation or the personal name of representative director as shown in the table below (On the other hand, △△△ Group received money in the name of advertising expenses from the Plaintiff, and paid all the remainder except for the advertising commission of 10 to 30% in total,00 won in the name of △△△△, and received corporate tax invoices from the Plaintiff’s account to 46,500,000 won in the name of △△ representative director, but did not receive corporate tax invoices from the Plaintiff to 75,500,000 won in the name of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 6, Evidence No. 7-1, Evidence No. 7-9, Evidence No. 15, Evidence No. 17, Evidence No. 25, Evidence No. 17, Evidence No. 25, Evidence No. 10, Part of Witness No. 1 of the court of first instance, fact-finding with respect to Han Bank Co., Ltd. (○○○ Branch) of the court of first instance

(2) The portion of personnel expenses paid to BB, KimCC, and ParkD

(가) 이BB은 원고 설립 당시부터 원고의 직원으로 근무하다가 2002. 6. 21.경 퇴직하였는데[원고의 설립 전에는 2000. 9.경부터 임FF의 개인사업체인 ♤♤컴(그 대표자는 원고의 대표이사 임FF의 처인 서GG 명의로 되어 있었고, 원고 설립 후 폐업되었다)의 직원으로 근무하였다] 2002년도에는 원고로부터 아래 표 기재와 같이 월 급여 합계 1,050만원과 퇴직위로금 700만원을 지급받았다. 한편 이BB은 임FF의 사업상 요청에 따라 그에게 대표자 명의를 대여하기로 하고 2001. 1. 20.경 '◇◇◆◆'이라는 상호로 사업자등록(대표자: 이BB)을 한 뒤, 2002. 6.경 퇴직과 함께 위 사업자 등록을 말소하였는바, 위 사업체는 임FF에 의해 실질적으로 운영되었다.

(B) Around June 2002, KimCC received benefits from the Plaintiff during the business year 2002, while employed as an employee of the Plaintiff (such as the Plaintiff’s work in charge of thisB).

(다) 박DD는 2002년 초경 ◆◆넷 주식회사를 퇴사한 뒤, 2002. 7.경 원고에 채용되어 그때부터 원고의 직원으로 근무하였는데, 2002사업연도 기간 중 원고로부터 아래 표 기재와 같이 급여를 지급받았다.

(D) From January 2002 to October 2002, the Plaintiff withheld taxes of 53,95,00 won in total for 15,00 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 36,00 won for 20,000 won for 36,00 won for 36,00 won for 36,00,00 won for 36,00 won for 36,00 won for 36,00 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 36,00 won for 36,00,000 won for 36,00 won for 36,00,00 won for 20,000 won for 36,00 won for 20,000 won for 36,00 won for 36,000 won for 36,00 won for ,000 won for 36,00

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 11, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 13, Gap evidence 14-1, 2, Gap evidence 15, Gap evidence 16, Gap evidence 18 through 22, Gap evidence 23-1 through 12, Gap evidence 24-1 through 6, Gap evidence 25, Gap evidence 26-1 through 3, Gap evidence 27-27-1, Gap evidence 28-1 through 11, Gap evidence 29 through 34, Gap evidence 1, 35-1, Gap evidence 36, Gap evidence 37-1, Gap evidence 38-2, Gap evidence 39-1 through 4, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 5-2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1 to 34, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1 to 4, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 1 to 38-1, 2, Gap evidence 39-4, Gap evidence 1 to 4

B)Judgment

According to the above facts, the plaintiff did not include 11,159,40 won in the deductible expenses, including the advertising expenses paid by the plaintiff to △△△△△△, 79,500 won and the personnel expenses of 31,659,400 won paid to thisB, KimCC, and Park DoD, as separate expenses, and instead disposed of the expenses with the amount of KRW 11,159,400 in the provisional auction proceeds (118,00,000) based on the tax invoice of this case, and the amount of KRW 111,159,40 in the above amount was excluded from the deductible expenses at the time of filing a corporate tax return. Thus, 111,159,400 won in the above amount should be added to the deductible expenses for 202 business year.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 79,500,000 paid to thisA was made in the name of rebates, and was paid without relation to the business. Even if the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of advertising expenses was made, the said money was illegal for raising funds, and thus, it cannot be included in deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to recognize inclusion of expenses in deductible expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses in order to obtain illegal income under the Corporate Tax Act, unless there are special circumstances such as substantial violation of social order (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6158 delivered on May 8, 1998). In addition, it is reasonable to recognize inclusion of deductible expenses in deductible expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses, regardless of whether it is prohibited under other Acts, and the net income should be subject to taxation regardless of whether it is prohibited under other Acts. In addition, it is reasonable to admit inclusion in deductible expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses in order to obtain illegal income (see Supreme Court Decision 9Nu6158 delivered on the basis of personal account, etc.). Accordingly, it is reasonable to admit that the Plaintiff’s advertising expenses paid to this A in accordance with the improper practice of broadcasting only at the time of the time, only the advertising expenses paid without the tax invoice under the request of this Act.

In addition, even if the plaintiff's above personnel expenses amounting to 31,659,400 won, the defendant asserts that since there is no objective financial data on the fact that the plaintiff's representative director's salary amounting to 36,000,000 won was paid to 36,000 won in total, it shall not overlap because the plaintiff already included the personnel expenses such as the above salary for 200,000 won in deductible expenses for 36,000 won in total for 200,000 won in deductible expenses, the plaintiff's representative director's 31,659,400 won in total for 200,000 won in total for 36,000 won in total for 202 for 200, it is difficult to accept the defendant's above argument.

Ultimately, the above part of the plaintiff's assertion is with merit.

3) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of the payment of goods and technical service charges (3)

살피건대, 원고가 세금계산서 수취 없이 임FF 명의 계좌를 통해, 주식회사 □□즈에 2회에 걸쳐 합계 9,906,000원의 상품대금을, 주식회사 ♧♧션 대표이사 김EE에게 2회에 걸쳐 합계 3,600,000원의 기술용역료를 각 지급한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나 갑 제15호증의 기재에 의하여 인정되나, 원고가 2002사업연도 법인세 신고시에 위 각 돈을 손금에서 제외하였다는 점을 인정할 아무런 증거가 없으므로[오히려 원고가 상대방 회사들로부터 수취한 세금계산서상의 공급가액 및 원고가 상대방에 지급한 금원의 액수 등에 비추어 볼 때(을 제3호증, 을 제4호증의 각 기재), 원고 주장의 위 각 돈은 모두 원고의 비용에 이미 포함되어 당기손익에 반영되었다고 봄이 상당하다], 원고의 위 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

(iv) the reasonable tax amount and notice of change in income amount;

A) If the Plaintiff’s assertion added KRW 111,159,400 to the deductible expenses of KRW 79,500,000 and personnel expenses of KRW 31,659,400 for EB, etc., the reasonable corporate tax amount is KRW 6,239,234 (the calculation is the same as the entry in the column for legitimate tax amount in the attached sheet).

B) Of the instant processed purchase amount of KRW 118,00,000, the remaining amount of KRW 6,840,660,000, excluding the said amount of KRW 111,159,40,000, plus value added tax (=6,524,660 (=6,840,600 KRW x1.1) is recognized.

5) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, the portion exceeding KRW 7,524,660 of the notice of change in the amount of bonus income for the business year 2002 and the portion exceeding KRW 6,239,234 of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 202 is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices who accepted part of the plaintiff's appeal and changed the judgment of the first instance court as above.