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

A. Conclusion of the instant contract

1) The Plaintiff is a person who closed his/her business on May 31, 2016, under the trade name BB.

"2) The plaintiff entered into a construction contract with BB on October 2005 with the construction period from November 11, 2005 to March 30, 2006, with the contract amount of KRW 340 million (hereinafter "construction cost of this case"), and newly constructed a new construction contract with BB on November 1, 2005 to November 28, 2005, with the construction cost of KRW 100 million, from January 12, 2006 to March 28, 2006, with the total amount of KRW 370,410,000,000 from March 28, 2006 to KRW 370,000,000,000,000 from March 28, 2006, and newly constructed a new construction contract or newly constructed a new construction contract with the "building (hereinafter "building (hereinafter "the construction cost of this case").

1) On the other hand, the Plaintiff leased a construction business license of ccc Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "ccccccccc") under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and carried out the new construction of this case. On November 2005, the Plaintiff separately drawn up a contract agreement between BB and BB, stating cc and 250 million won for the construction cost (including value-added tax).

2) CC issued to BB a tax invoice of KRW 227,272,72,726 in the aggregate of the supply value of the second term portion in 2005, the supply value of KRW 145,454,545, and the first term portion in 2006, the supply value of KRW 81,818,181, respectively, and reported and paid the value of supply based on the said tax invoice, including the output amount and the income amount, as follows:

[Attachment 1] Details of the tax amount reported and paid by CC (unit: Won)

Value-added Tax

Corporate Tax

Classification

For the second term, 2005

For the first term, 2006

Classification

Reversion to the year 2005

Reversion to the year 2006

Preliminary Return

Sales amount

392,765,946

157,782,527

Revenue amount

1,275,423,55

49,682,518

Purchase Tax Amount

304,421,474

79,430,203

Tax amount payable

8,834,458

7,835,253

Tax Base

135,680,824

85,557,058

Final Return

Sales amount

858,881,128

-

Purchase Tax Amount

563,466,593

7,311,419

Liability Tax Amount

19,414,386

11,122,417

Tax amount payable

29,541,542

-731,123

(c) Detection of the fact of violation of name and the disposition of this case.

1) On March 28, 2013, BB sold the instant building to a third party and reported transfer income tax, and submitted the instant contract document stating the construction cost of the instant building as KRW 340 million to the tax authority. In the process of processing BB’s taxation data, the Defendant discovered the fact that the Plaintiff received the instant construction cost in accordance with the instant contract and did not report and pay the said value-added tax and income tax.

"2) Accordingly, on January 7, 2016, the defendant issued a correction and imposition (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") of the value-added taxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in the first quarter of the year 2006, calculated as listed below as follows, to the plaintiff on January 7, 2016, and of the disposition in this case (unit: source) [Attachment 2]

Value-added Tax

Global Income Tax

Classification

For the second term, 2005

For the first term, 2006

Classification

Reversion to the year 2006

Tax Base

90,909,910

249,181,818

Revenue amount

249,181,818

Sales amount

9,090,910

24,918,182

Amount of income;

39,470,398

Purchase Tax Amount

-

-

Tax Base

37,000,998

Amount of final tax

X.x

X.x

Amount of final tax

X.x

(d) Procedures of the previous trial; and

On April 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an inquiry tribunal with the Tax Tribunal. However, on June 30, 2016, the claim was dismissed.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Do of the exclusion period of imposition

If the total floor area is above a certain size, the Plaintiff entered into a contract by lending the name of ccc and reported ccc as the contractor in order to avoid a regulation that is prohibited from constructing the building, not the registered contractor.

In consultation with the owner of the instant construction project, the price of the instant construction project was lower than KRW 227,272,726, but cc paid value-added tax, etc. based on this part as the output tax amount. As such, this part was not the purpose of evading taxes, and it was merely omitted for the remainder of KRW 112,727,274. As such, the period for exclusion of imposition shall be applied to KRW 227,272,726 of the instant construction project, and seven years for the remainder of the construction project.

Nevertheless, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff evaded or was refunded national taxes due to fraudulent and other unlawful acts, and the instant disposition was made by applying the ten-year exclusion period to the total amount of the construction cost of this case, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(ii) double taxation;

cC filed and paid value-added tax, etc. on KRW 227,272,72,726 of the instant construction cost. As such, the Defendant’s failure to refund claim to CC on the ground of five-year exclusion period of filing a claim for correction was in violation of the double taxation principle, and the part of the instant disposition based on the above amount is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Determination on the Do and argument for exclusion period of imposition

A) The legislative purport of Article 26-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to extend the exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes to 10 years, in principle, in a case where there is an unlawful act, such as making it difficult for the tax authority to find out the facts requiring the imposition of national taxes or forging false facts, while the exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes is five years in order to promptly determine tax relations, and it is difficult for the tax authority to expect the exercise of the imposition of national taxes. Therefore, the "Fraud and other unlawful act" under Article 26-2(1)1 of the same Act refers to a deceptive scheme or other active act, which makes it difficult or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes impossible or difficult, and it does not constitute a mere failure to file a tax return or making a false tax return without accompanying any other act, but where active circumstances such as failure to file a tax return or underreporting, and making it difficult for him/her to impose and collect taxes, or preparing a false contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do5294, Apr. 29, 198).

In addition, even if income is obtained by disguised title, if it is not related to tax evasion, it does not constitute "Fraud or other unlawful act" under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, if it comes from the nominal name for the purpose of tax evasion, such as avoidance of progressive tax rates, diversification of income, application of special exemption and reduction, use of the name in the name of insolvent person who does not pay taxes, etc. Furthermore, if it is added to active acts such as preparation of a false sales contract and false payment for the purpose of tax evasion, false return of capital gains tax, false registration, false registration and record, preparation, keeping, etc. of a false account book, it constitutes "Fraud or other unlawful act which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du7667, Dec. 12, 2013).

B) The Plaintiff asserts that the remaining 12,72,726 won and the remaining 112,727,27,274 won shall be divided among the construction price of this case reported and paid by CC as the supply price. However, if the Plaintiff’s act of reducing construction price by lending CC’s name and reporting it constitutes “a case of evading national taxes by fraud or other unlawful act” under Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the exclusion period for imposition of 10 years is applicable to the national tax related to the construction price of this case, and the separate exclusion period for imposition is not applicable to one of the above separate taxable units. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not fall under “a case of evading national taxes by fraud or other unlawful act.” Examining the facts and circumstances that can be recognized by each of the above evidence in light of the above legal principles, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff evaded national taxes by fraud or other unlawful act, and therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① While carrying out the instant construction project, the Plaintiff reduced the contract amount to KRW 112,727,274,274, less than the contract amount of the instant construction project, and reduced to KRW 227,272,726, which was below 112,72,726. The Plaintiff prepared a false contract form with BB and issued a tax invoice to cc as a supplier.

② The supply price and time of each tax invoice issued at cC on February 2, 2005 and 1, 2006 are inconsistent with the supply price and time of supply for each service under the instant contract. cc appears to have arbitrarily declared and paid the above KRW 227,272,72,726 in consideration of the input tax amount in the relevant taxable period, corporate accounting, etc. In addition, in applying the tax rate, when the Plaintiff returns the income tax as the actual payment for the instant construction work as an individual entrepreneur, then if the Plaintiff returns the income tax as the tax base for the instant construction work as the one for which it was actually paid, the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 2007) (amended by Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 200) applies to each [1635,000 +80,000 won in excess of the supply price of each of the instant tax bases [30,000 won in the previous tax rate of 2.2.5 million won]

③ In addition, in the case of value-added tax, ccc input tax was deducted from the output tax amount, and as corporate accounting was reflected in the corporate accounting, it can be said that the Plaintiff paid the value-added tax and the income tax less than the income tax that the Plaintiff should have paid for the construction price

④ The Plaintiff was unable to discover the exact taxation requirement of national taxes related to the construction cost of the instant case and its omission report by the taxing authority.

⑤ There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff actually paid cc with c the amount equivalent to the value-added tax, etc. reported and paid in relation to the construction cost of the instant case.

(6) The Plaintiff appears to have been well aware that, after borrowing the name of ccc and carrying out the instant construction, it would result in the reduction of national tax revenues by arbitrarily dividing the taxable period into ccc as well as by allowing ccc to report and pay the value-added tax and corporate tax as the output tax amount or revenue amount. The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have committed such act solely for the purpose of avoiding regulations on the implementation of construction works.

2) Determination of double taxation assertion

The instant disposition is a taxation on the instant construction cost that the Plaintiff received pursuant to the instant contract and omitted tax returns. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s tax liability differs from the value-added tax, corporate tax, or corporate tax that is reported and paid by cC, and regardless of whether ccc is entitled to receive a refund of the existing value-added tax, corporate tax, or corporate tax through a request for correction, etc., it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition constitutes double taxation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Since all of the plaintiff's claims are without merit, they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.