2. The appeal filed by the Plaintiff ELD Co., Ltd is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

A. When the Plaintiff ELD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd”) returns and pays the purchase tax amount on the purchase tax invoice received from the Sung Jinc Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SP”) in January 2007, February 2007, and January 2008, and the corporate tax in 2007 and 2008, it included the amount of sales tax as deductible expenses after deducting the value of supply on the purchase tax invoice received from Sung Jinc Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SP”) as listed below.

Value-added tax (units: Won, 207, 2007, 2007, 980,691, 907, 9685, 228, 176, 711, 000, 949, 477, 135 176, 71, 711, 000, 1300, 207, 207, 2008, 2008, 2007, 2000

The Plaintiff also received a purchase tax invoice of KRW 7 million from Nonparty 1, who operates ○○ Construction, and included the purchase tax invoice after deducting it as an input tax amount when filing a return and payment of the value tax for the second year of 2007 and the corporate tax for the business year of 2007.

B. On June 11, 2010, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of value-added tax and corporate tax against the Plaintiff Company as stated in attached Form No. 1 on the ground that the purchase tax invoice received by the Plaintiff Company is merely a disguised company, and the purchase tax invoice received by Nonparty 1 constitutes a disguised purchase or a disguised purchase, and the purchase tax invoice received by Nonparty 1, constitutes a fictitious purchase, and thus, the input tax amount should be deducted from the input tax amount. In the case of a fictitious purchase, the input tax amount should be deducted from the input tax amount and the loss should not be included in deductible expenses (hereinafter “the first disposition”).

Table (units: : 866,091, 953, 737 176, 711, 996, 539, 114,60, 600, 129, 647 total of 980,691, 968,784 176,7112,126,186 on January 2, 2007

C. As the Plaintiff Company did not pay the above value-added tax and corporate tax by the payment deadline, the Defendant, on July 16, 2010, designated Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 as the oligopolistic shareholder of the Plaintiff Company, who held 50%, 25%, and 25% in the order of the Plaintiff Company’s shares during the taxable period of value-added tax and corporate tax, as the oligopolistic shareholder of the Plaintiff Company, and imposed and notified the said Plaintiffs of value-added tax and corporate tax (hereinafter “the second disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff Company filed a petition for trial with the Tax Tribunal for the revocation of the first disposition of the instant case (hereinafter “Tax Tribunal”) but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the petition on December 23, 2010.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4

A. The defendant's main defense

Since Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 filed the instant lawsuit without going through the pre-trial procedure prescribed in the Framework Act on National Taxes, such lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Determination on the legitimacy of the lawsuit

Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides, “ Notwithstanding the main sentence of Article 18(1), Article 18(2), and Article 56(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, an administrative litigation against an illegal disposition prescribed in Article 55 shall not be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under this Act and a decision thereon.” Since the lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 was not subject to a prior trial procedure prescribed in Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case (no dispute) and thus, the lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs 2, 2, 3, and 4 is unlawful.

As to this, Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 asserted that the Plaintiff Company may file the instant lawsuit without going through the procedure of the Tax Tribunal, insofar as it goes through the procedure of the Tax Tribunal on the first disposition of this case. However, the argument is difficult to accept. The reasons are as follows.

1) In tax administration, two or more administrative dispositions for the same purpose were taken in the course of a phased and developmental process, and are related to each other. Whether during the proceeding of a tax litigation, the tax authority changed the taxation disposition subject to the said disposition, and the reason for illegality exists, and where several persons are subject to the same obligation due to the same administrative disposition, one of the persons liable for tax payment or the person liable for tax payment grants an opportunity to re-determine the basic facts and legal issues, as in the preceding disposition, and where there are justifiable grounds, such as where the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and the Tax Tribunal are given an opportunity to make a decision on the tax disposition again, and where it seems that the taxpayer would be harsh to undergo the procedure of the preceding trial and it would be harsh to have the person liable for tax payment undergo the procedure of the preceding trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du10170, Apr. 14,

The first disposition against the Plaintiff Company is a disposition of imposition on the principal taxpayer. The second disposition against the Plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 of this case is a disposition of imposition on the secondary taxpayer due to the delinquency of the principal taxpayer. However, for the establishment of the second tax liability, the occurrence of facts constituting the requirements, such as the delinquency of the principal taxpayer, etc., and the second tax payment notice against the secondary taxpayer is an independent disposition of imposition on the principal taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du1750, Oct. 23, 2008).

Therefore, the second disposition of this case is conducted by more than two administrative dispositions for the same purpose in the course of step-by-step and development, and is not related to each other, and it does not constitute a case where the tax authorities changed the taxation disposition, and it does not constitute a case where several persons are subject to the same obligation due to the same administrative disposition.

2) The Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the Tax Tribunal did not have the opportunity for re-determination of the instant second disposition against Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4, and there is no reason to deem that it would be harsh to make the previous trial process.

3) As seen earlier, when there exist justifiable grounds, such as where one of the persons liable for tax payment, who are jointly liable for the payment of the same tax, appears to be harsh to have caused the taxpayer to undergo or undergo the procedure of the preceding trial, the taxpayer may file an administrative lawsuit claiming the revocation of the tax disposition even without going through the procedure of the preceding trial. In certain cases, allowing the taxpayer to undergo the procedure of the preceding trial as stipulated in the Framework Act on National Taxes without going through the procedure of the preceding trial is limited to cases where there is no need to repeat the procedure of adjudication conducted by the Tax Tribunal on the same issue. In this case, the time when the notice of the second disposition against the Plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 was given only to the state where the Plaintiff filed a request for tax judgment on the first disposition of the instant case, and did not undergo the said decision without going through the procedure of the preceding trial ( even if the Plaintiffs followed the Plaintiff’s assertion on January 23, 2009, the said Plaintiffs sold the Plaintiff’s shares to the Plaintiff 2, 3, and 4, respectively, were unreasonable.

3. Determination as to the legitimacy of the first disposition of this case

(a) cite the judgment of the first instance court;

The reason why this Court is used for this part is that the part concerning the Plaintiff Company of the first and second dispositions in the judgment of the court of first instance (from 6th to 7th by the fifth judgment of the court of first instance) is identical to the part concerning which “3. The legitimacy of the first and second dispositions in this case (from 6th to 7th by the fifth judgment of the court of first instance),” and therefore the corresponding part is cited in accordance

B. Additional determination as to the assertion regarding gender directorship

1) The Plaintiff Company asserts that a transaction with Sung Jinex is not a disguised business, and thus, is not a processing or disguised transaction. However, in light of the aforementioned circumstances and the following circumstances, which can be comprehensively known in light of the entire purport of the arguments, including the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, and No. 7 and 11, Sung Jinex is a disguised business entity. Tax invoice for the portion verified by the Plaintiff Company as being supplied by a business entity, other than Sung Jinex, is a disguised business, and that for the portion not so confirmed, the first disposition of the instant case is legitimate.

1. Despite the fact that there is a large number of transactions asserted to have been traded with scarcity, the scarcity was unable to submit the documents, such as certificates of acceptance, certificates of storage, and invoices, that it acquired the goods, such as clothing, even at the stage of the instant tax trial.

② On January 15, 2007, at the independent branch of our bank, Defendant 2 opened the bank account at the independent branch of our bank. At that time, Nonparty 2 took charge of its duties. However, the independent branch of our bank is not near Mapo-gu Seoul, but near Jongno-gu, Seoul, the Plaintiff’s workplace at the time, and Nonparty 2, who was in charge of opening the bank account from July 2, 2006 to November 5, 2009, was working as the representative director of the Plaintiff company from September 2, 2009 to November 5, 2009, and Nonparty 2 did not have worked as the representative director of the Plaintiff company. In addition, Nonparty 4, who was an employee of Seongbuk-gu, is currently the employee of the Plaintiff company.

③ There was a tax evasion report that the Plaintiff Company received the purchase tax invoices from data sources, etc.

④ As a result of the computerized inquiry conducted by the National Tax Service, it was confirmed that the export amount of Mazex was KRW 222,361,00,000 during the investigation period, but there was no record of receiving the price from abroad, and the export product is irrelevant to the type of Mazex as an excessive product, and that the Mazex agent did not know about the export content.

2) The Plaintiff Company asserts that, even if the part recognized as a disguised transaction by the Defendant was the actual disguised transaction, the amount of tax arising from purchase and transaction should be deducted and the purchase amount should be included in deductible expenses, since it was unaware of the fact. In light of the relationship between the Plaintiff Company and the Sung Jinex, etc., the Plaintiff Company should be deemed to have been aware of the disguised transaction between Sung Jinex, and thus, the Plaintiff Company’s assertion on a different premise is without merit (the Defendant included the disguised transaction in relation to corporate tax).

3) The Plaintiff Company asserts to the effect that the portion actually used as the price for goods to the merchants of the Dongdaemun-gu market among the parts arising from the processing transaction should be recognized as losses. As seen earlier, the part acknowledged as the processing transaction by the Defendant is recognized as not having been engaged in scarf and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the portion was paid as the actual cost as alleged by the Plaintiff Company (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du16406, Apr. 14, 2006). This part of the Plaintiff Company’s assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The part of the judgment of the first instance against Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 shall be revoked, and the part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed. The appeal filed by the Plaintiff Company shall be dismissed.

[Attachment List omitted]

Justices Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)