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

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant’s global income tax amounting to KRW 00,00,000, for the year 2006, 2007, for the Plaintiff on January 2, 2015

global income tax of KRW 000,000,000, and global income tax of KRW 0,000,000 for the year 2008 (including additional tax); and

each disposition of imposition shall be confirmed to be null and void.

A. From February 1, 1994 to March 11, 2008, the Plaintiff No. 000,000 Dong 000-00, 000 AA building 00,000

In this case, a lawyer or a patent attorney-at-law office (hereinafter referred to as the "workplace of this case") has been engaged in legal practice in the trade name.

B. From August 11, 2014 to September 11, 2014, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff.

As a result, from 2006 to 2008, the Plaintiff has a maximum of 00 employees' fees, etc.

00,000,000 won in total received in the account of 00 bank (hereinafter referred to as the "share account")

(i) Amount of KRW 000,000,000 for 2006 + Amount of KRW 000,000,000 for 2007 + Amount of KRW 200,000 for 208 income

was investigated as omitting a return of 00,000,000 won, hereinafter referred to as "the amount of income of this case").

(c)

C. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) on January 2, 2015, the global income tax of KRW 00,000,000 for the Plaintiff for the year 2006;

Aggregate of the global income tax of 000,000,000 won for the year 2007, and the global income tax of 0,000,000 for the year 2008

1. Each correction and notification of KRW 00,000 (including additional tax) was made (hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case").

D. On April 1, 2015, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the Commissioner of the Regional Tax Office against the Plaintiff:

The Director of the Regional Tax Office dismissed his objection on May 7, 2015.

written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 and 3 (including paper numbers), respectively, that there is no dispute for recognition;

The purport of all pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The maximum 00 money deposited in the key account as an employee of a patent attorney office, not an attorney-at-law office, was a cost of deposit, stamp, etc., and the clients directly hold the money and receive a receipt or deposit it into a bank account under the name of the attorney-at-law.

The defendant paid the fee, and the defendant imposed the fee on the plaintiff's income without specifically examining all the money deposited in the Maximum 00 account during the taxable period of about 2 years, and the amount of money deposited and withdrawn by the chief of the office, etc. for the convenience of bank traffic in the transaction of the issues account.

Considering that the disposition of this case is included in the Plaintiff’s income, the disposition of this case is null and void because it was serious and clear as it was about the Plaintiff’s income, not the Plaintiff’s income.

2) 7 years from the date on which national taxes may be imposed on each of the instant dispositions, even if not,

It is imposed after the expiration of the exclusion period, and is null and void.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

the Gu that the amount deposited in the account of the financial institution of the taxpayer constitutes sales or revenue;

In the process of a physical lawsuit, the court determines that it may be presumed in light of the empirical rule; or

may be proved by the method of identifying indirect facts, which the taxpayer may specify the following:

The same shall also apply to cases where a nominal account is used. Whether such presumption may be made

the account of the financial institution was used as a principal deposit and management account on sales or revenues subject to taxation;

sales or revenue in light of the date of payment, the other party and amount, etc.;

of the account, the proportion of transactions related to sales or revenue to the account, and the contrary;

relevant financial instruments, such as the possibility and degree of mixing of funds for other purposes other than sales or revenue;

It should be determined by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances as to the amount deposited in the government account (Supreme Court Decision 2017.

6. Supreme Court Decision 2016Du1035 Decided June 23, 2015 and Supreme Court Decision 2012Du7769 Decided June 23, 2015

On the other hand, taxation is imposed on a person who does not have any legal or factual relation subject to taxation.

any legal relationship in which defects are significant and apparent or not subject to taxation; or

there are objective circumstances that could mislead the person into being subject to taxation on his factual basis.

In the case, it should be accurately examined whether it is subject to taxation or not.

Where it is apparent, even if the defect is serious, it cannot be deemed obvious to appear in appearance.

As above, it cannot be deemed that the taxation disposition that misleads the fact of taxation requirements is null and void as a matter of course.

This is (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002).

In this case, each entry and pleading of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4 to 8 (including paper numbers)

In full view of the purport of the whole, the following circumstances, i.e., the maximum 00, Jan. 1, 2005

Until April 4, 2007, the fact that the workplace of this case had served as an employee of the plaintiff and received benefits;

② The maximum 00 account opened on March 2, 2006 at the Plaintiff’s request on February 14, 2008.

upon termination of the contract, it is confirmed that there is no relationship with the principal with respect to the details of the financial transaction of the account.

The account was used as a business account with respect to the Plaintiff’s instant workplace.

(3) the amount deposited in the name of the largest 00 out of the amount deposited into the key account;

The amount returned immediately after the payment of the attorney fees, the amount paid as the deposit, etc. shall be deducted.

After confirming the amount of the deposit, the amount of the revenue shall be excluded from the amount of the revenue, such as stamp fee and service fee.

(4) A notice shall be given to some clients that the Defendant deposited in the key account.

As a result of questioning the reasons for and details of the deposit, some clients are refunded the fee, etc.

5. The defendant's return compared to the plaintiff's report of value-added tax

In light of the fact that the amount of tax reported is increased or corrected by omitting importation for the portion exceeding the amount, etc.

From the point of view, the issue account is the Plaintiff’s business borrowed account and deposited in the account.

The plaintiff's income is presumed to be the plaintiff's income, and there is no other reflective evidence. He does not do so.

Even if the Plaintiff asserts, the circumstances should be accurately examined.

It is reasonable to see that each disposition of this case is a ground for revocation. Thus, it can only be a ground for revocation of each disposition of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) Judgment on the second argument

The former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Framework Act on National Taxes").

The main sentence of Article 26-2 (1) shall be that of a taxpayer by fraud or other improper means.

Where a national tax is evaded, refunded, or deducted, ten days from the date on which the national tax is assessable.

The term of the year (paragraph (1) provides that no tax shall be levied after the expiry of the term, and such provision provides that no tax shall be levied after

‘Unlawful conduct' means to make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes;

It refers to a deceptive scheme or other aggressive act and without accompanying any other act.

The failure to make a report under tax law or making a false report constitutes this.

There is no need (Supreme Court Decision 99Do5355 Decided April 21, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 99Do5355 Decided January 15, 2015).

High Court Decision 2014Du11618, etc.

The plaintiff, during the period from 2006 to 2008, the income of this case, including attorney fees, etc.

The fact that the amount was deposited into the account in the name of the Plaintiff, not the account in the name of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff omitted the amount of the instant income accrued during the global income tax period from 2006 to 2008 from the global income tax base and the amount of tax payable, etc. as seen earlier. According to the above fact of recognition, the Plaintiff imposed taxes by unlawful means, such as using the borrowed account, etc.

Fraudulent means or other unlawful acts which make it impossible or considerably difficult to collect them;

It is reasonable to see that the Defendant’s global income for the Plaintiff from 2006 to 2008.

Each disposition of this case with respect to each of the dispositions of this case shall be within 10 years from the day following the due date of report and payment ( May 31, 198).

Since it is apparent that the imposition was made on January 2, 2015, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

[Attachment]

Relevant statutes

(1) The former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009)

Article 24 (Calculation of Total Amount of Income)

(1) The total amount of income of a resident shall be calculated on the basis of the total amount received or received during the relevant year.

(1) The former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010)

Article 26-2 (Period for Excluding Assessment of National Tax)

(1) No national tax may be levied after the period prescribed in the following subparagraphs expires: Provided, That where a mutual agreement procedure is in progress under the provisions of a treaty concluded to prevent double taxation (hereinafter referred to as "tax treaty"), Article 25 of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act shall apply:

1. Where a taxpayer evades any national tax, or is refunded or deducted by a deceitful or other unlawful act, ten years from the date on which the national tax is assessable; and