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

A. Non-party 2 and non-party 3 changed the content of the main complex building [the site: 9,986С (3,020.77 square meters) and building: 39,556.34 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Aradow Holdings”), among the commercial buildings [the site: approximately 4,989.33 square meters (1,509.27 square meters)]; 48,782.9 square meters (17,781.59 square meters) from the 3rd underground or above; hereinafter “the non-party 2,07.1 square meters (hereinafter “the instant commercial building”) and the non-party 2, as at the time of the change of the agreement between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, as at the time of the conclusion of the agreement with the representative director on July 10, 2003 (hereinafter “the instant building”).

① In order to efficiently carry out the purchase of real estate (land, buildings, etc.) for new development projects by Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, this service contract is to receive all essential and specialized real estate services necessary for real estate sales contracts, such as discovery, selection, and pre-survey, real estate assessment, negotiation, and conclusion of contracts, and consulting services necessary for the development of real estate purchased in the future through Nonparty 1 (Article 2).

② According to the conclusion of this contract, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3 provide services, such as prior consultation on real estate (land and buildings) investment terms and finding appropriate candidates, real estate site construction, development plans, negotiations and support for conclusion of contracts, etc. (hereinafter “instant services”) regarding the purchase of real estate (Article 3).

3. The term of this service shall be 12 months from the date of conclusion of this contract and shall be deemed to have been completed upon the expiration of the term of this service (Article 4 subparagraph 1).

④ Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 shall pay remuneration for services and other performance expenses incurred in the performance of this service. In addition, Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 shall pay to Nonparty 1 the following expenses: (a) consultation on terms and conditions of sale of real estate selected separately; (b) consulting and consulting and consulting on the utilization of development for the purpose of minimizing development gains of real estate invested; and (c) remuneration for services that are paid for consulting services, such as strategies for development of real estate purchased through this service and strategies for financing financing consulting, etc.; and (d) remuneration for services that are paid to Nonparty 1, such as income tax and resident tax, to be paid by Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 (Article 5).

⑤ All rights and obligations of Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 relating to this Agreement shall be automatically succeeded to by the real estate development corporation established or accepted as the week between Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 in the future.

B. After that, on October 6, 2003, Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, upon Nonparty 1’s appointment as the representative director, entered into an additional agreement on the modification of the contract between Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 among the parties to the instant service contract and Nonparty 1 on October 7, 2003.

C. On the other hand, on October 14, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with E.I.D. to purchase the instant commercial part of KRW 88,829,250,00 (excluding value-added tax). Accordingly, on January 12, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Non-Party 1 to pay a total of KRW 10.5 billion as follows in consideration of the provision of services for Non-Party 1 to enter into a sales contract for the instant commercial part in the Plaintiff’s name.

The Plaintiff, as of April 30, 200, at the 1st day of April 30, 2004, paid to Nonparty 1 the amount of taxes, such as income tax and resident tax, etc., to be paid by Nonparty 1. The Plaintiff, as of June 30, 2004, KRW 204,000 on December 30, 2004, KRW 5,148,000,000 on December 30, 2004, KRW 10,500,000 on December 30, 2004.

D. After July 9, 2004, the plaintiff and the non-party 1 entered into an additional contract as to the change of the contract, and changed the service period from July 9, 2003 to July 9, 2004 (12 months) to the period from July 10, 2003 to December 10, 204 (17 months). The plaintiff agreed to determine the service fees that the plaintiff shall pay to the non-party 1 as the amount stipulated in the agreement of January 12, 2004. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid to the non-party 1 a total of 13,450,915,686 won under the service contract of this case (hereinafter "the service fees of this case") and submitted a statement of payment related to the income tax and resident tax of this case and the payment related thereto.

5,323,681,483 won, 175,681,485 won, 480 won, 159,710, 440 won, 15,971,040 won, 5,971,040 won, 175,483 won, 175,681,480, 480 won, and 159,710, 4040 won, 1563, 1540, 157, 1648, 1548, 157, 157, 204, 157, 157, 157, 204, 157, 157, 157, 204, 157, 204, 157, 205, 157, 204, 2004, 157, 2584, 207, 15

E. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, from July 12, 2007 to December 31, 2007, conducted an integrated investigation of corporate tax against the plaintiff et al., and the facts in relation to the instant service contract are as follows: (a) the service contract of this case, despite the non-party 1, who is the representative director, provided the service to the plaintiff, is regarded as indicating the non-party 1 as the party to the contract of this case; and (b) the actual owner of the service fee of this case, deeming the person to whom the service fee of this case belongs as the principal L&C, and notified the tax data to the competent tax office; and

F. In relation to the service fees of this case paid to Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff filed a return on the income subject to withholding as set forth in the above paragraph (d) above, and did not receive and keep documentary evidence of disbursement under Article 116 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7289 of Dec. 31, 2004 and enforced July 1, 2005; hereinafter “Corporate Tax Act”) including purchase tax invoices. Accordingly, on February 1, 2008, the Defendant issued a disposition of this case imposing KRW 269,018,310 equivalent to 2/100 of the service fees of this case reverted to the business year 2004 by applying the additional tax on non-verification of documentary evidence under Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act to the Plaintiff.

G. Meanwhile, the non-party 1 did not complete the business registration under Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act in performing the service business against the plaintiff in accordance with the instant service contract.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5-15, Evidence No. 7-1, 2, Evidence No. 9, Evidence Nos. 1, 12, 17, and 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the parties to the instant service contract were the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 and the instant service fees were paid to Nonparty 1, the instant disposition based on the premise that the person to whom the instant service transaction belongs is the principal T&C is unlawful. Moreover, there was no room for choice to take other than withholding income tax, etc. when the Plaintiff paid the instant service fees to Nonparty 1, and thus, it is unreasonable to impose penalty tax by asking the Plaintiff liable for not receiving the tax invoice, etc. against the Plaintiff on the transactional basis.

(2) Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that an additional tax on lack of evidence shall be imposed on a person who receives goods for the smooth circulation of the source of taxation and for the smooth collection of taxation data. Thus, an additional tax on lack of evidence shall not be imposed on the plaintiff who fulfilled the duty to withhold tax against the non-party 1.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion

First of all, the facts that the service charges of this case were 00 billion won or more for the 0th 0th 1st 0th 1st 0th 2th 1st 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 00 0th 0th 1st 00 0th 00 0th 000 0th 00 0th 00 0th 1st 000 0th 1st 00 0th 00 0th 0 00 0th 00 00 0th 1st 00 000 0th 00 000 0th 100 08 000 th 08 000 00th 00

Thus, the non-party 1 should be deemed to have concluded the instant service contract with the Plaintiff and provided the instant service to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the legality of the instant disposition should be examined under these facts.

The obligation to receive and keep documentary evidence as stipulated in Article 116 of the Corporate Tax Act is a duty imposed on a taxpayer to realize the underlying taxation that intends to impose objectively on the basis of documentary evidence of expenditure (see Constitutional Court en banc Order 2006Hun-Ba88, May 31, 2007). Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act falls under the trading partner subject to receipt of documentary evidence of regular expenditure under the Corporate Tax Act (Article 116(2)2 of the Act, Article 158(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act), and Article 158(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is not excluded from receipt of documentary evidence of regular expenditure (Article 460-12-199, January 20, 200).

Therefore, at the time when Nonparty 1 provided the instant service to the Plaintiff and received the instant service fee from the Plaintiff, if he satisfies the requirements as a business operator under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the pertinent business operator is obligated to report and pay the value-added tax on the supply of the pertinent goods or the provision of the services without relation to whether the pertinent business operator is registered and the transaction of the value-added tax is collected. Whether the pertinent transaction constitutes a business operator should be determined in light of social norms by considering whether the pertinent transaction is continuous and repeated to the extent that it can be seen as business activities in light of its size, frequency, mode, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1857 delivered on Apr. 25,

However, according to the evidence No. 2-1 through 5, No. 10-1, No. 10-2, and No. 14, Nonparty 1 was engaged in real estate development-related business for a long time as the representative director of Won L&C, which mainly carries on real estate development business, etc., Nonparty 1 paid money to the Plaintiff according to the services contract for the development of the site for Dai department stores entered into on October 2002 and the project management contract entered into on October 2003, which was entered into between Gai Gai Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don 2, which was not in compliance with the obligation of No. 10-1, No. 6-2, and No. 14, which were not in compliance with the obligation of No. 1, No. 6-2, who did not receive money from the Plaintiff as a temporary intermediary or other service-related business income for the purpose of this case.

(2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

Under the tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, as prescribed by the Act without justifiable grounds, the taxpayer’s intention or negligence is not considered, and the site, error, etc. of the Act does not constitute justifiable grounds that do not cause the breach of duty (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du10545, Apr. 26, 2007, etc.).

However, it is difficult to view that there is a justifiable reason for the Plaintiff to receive documentary evidence solely on the ground that there are various circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, namely, the duty to withhold the service fees of this case paid to Nonparty 1, or that there is a very difficult situation to receive a tax invoice from Nonparty 1 in reality. Therefore, the first Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's appeal.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)