2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's imposition of each disposition listed in attached Table 1 against the plaintiffs on February 1, 2013 shall be revoked.

A. From June 10, 2005 to August 20, 2012, bothCC operated an entertainment tavern (hereinafter “instant place of business”) under the name of ○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○-dong, from the first floor above the building of ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○-dong, and registered the business of the instant place of business in the name of GaD from June 10, 2005 to June 30, 2008, and from July 1, 2008 to August 20, 2012.

B. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on the instant workplace from April 12, 2012 to July 6, 2012, 012, the ○○ regional tax office: (a) identified that the amount of income omitted between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2009 is ○○○○○○○○○, and notified the Defendant of the foregoing taxation data; (b) on July 5, 2012, the Defendant corrected and notified the ○○○, including the value-added tax, the special consumption tax (including the education tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the global income tax, ○○○.

C. On October 4, 2012, 2006, the Parties filed an objection with the Plaintiffs to request the re-issuance of global income tax for the year 2006 and global income tax for the year 2007. The ○○ Director of the Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiffs of the re-audit on October 24, 2012 and the period of the business (from June 14, 2006 to January 14, 2007, the distribution rate: 40% of the Parties: 30% of the LCC; MaA30%) and the period of the Plaintiff EA business (from January 15, 2007 to September 30, 2007 to 10: 20% of the amount of the Plaintiff’s domestic tax office’s re-audit and 10% of the amount of the Plaintiff’s income and 20% of the amount of the tax were distributed to the Defendant, and the amount of the Plaintiff’s co-audit and 120% of the amount of the Plaintiff 1.

D. Accordingly, on February 1, 2013, as indicated in the corresponding column of attached Table 1, the Defendant rendered a disposition to Plaintiff MA, including ① the Plaintiff’s KRW ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in 2007, global income tax for 2006, global income tax for 2007, global income tax for 2007, ○○○○○○○○○○○ in 2007, 206, 2006, 2006, 200, 200, 206, 2006, 206, 2006, 207, 306, 206, 306, etc.

E. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on August 28, 2013 and August 14, 2013, but the said request for a trial was entirely dismissed on December 30, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs agreed to receive business allowances based on the plaintiffs' sales performance and employed as a business conference at the workplace of this case, and they did not run bothCC and the workplace of this case as a joint business. In addition, the defendant adopted a civil lawsuit (the Changwon District Court 2007Gahap8716, etc.) between plaintiffs MA and YangCC (the Changwon District Court 2007Gahap8716, etc.) and a business day voluntarily prepared by bothCC as taxation data without any verification, and even though the plaintiffs requested ○○ Regional Tax Office to deny the partnership with the twoCC and to conduct a general investigation on December 2012, they did not grant specific opportunities for explanation to the plaintiffs, such as denying the partnership with the twoCC and not accepting it. Accordingly, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it violates the substance over form principle and the taxation principle, and it infringes the procedural right (Article 81-5 of the Framework

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On December 7, 2007, Plaintiff MA filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of embezzlement, etc. against bothCC (Seoul District Court 2007Gahap8716). However, on January 6, 2011, Plaintiff MA was sentenced to a dismissal ruling from the above court, and the said judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive because both the said appellate court and the final appellate court have lost, and the facts recognized in the said lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as “the instant lawsuit”) are as follows.

2) On June 13, 2011, bothCC filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff MA seeking the payment of embezzlement (Chowon District Court 201 Gohap5141). However, on June 21, 2012, upon being sentenced to a dismissal ruling from the above court, the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive as it was in the appellate trial, and the facts recognized in the above lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as “related lawsuit 2”) are as follows.

3) Meanwhile, from the end of December 2007 to the beginning of January 2008, Plaintiff MA and YangCC filed a complaint with each other on the charge of embezzlement, etc. (hereinafter “related criminal cases”), and Plaintiff MA and YangCC made a statement to the following purport in the course of the investigation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 7, all pleadings

purport of this chapter

D. Determination

1) Whether the substance over form principle is violated

However, considering the following circumstances, including the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of oral arguments, the facts acknowledged in the final judgment of the administrative court related to this case are significant evidence, barring any special circumstance where it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment of the relevant case in light of other evidence submitted in the administrative court. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da41657, Jun. 11, 2002) As seen above, "the final judgment of the pertinent lawsuit and the twoCC entered into a business agreement with the pertinent business establishment on June 14, 2006." (2) Plaintiff EA consistently asserted that there was a business relationship with the pertinent business establishment from the first instance of the first instance of the pertinent lawsuit to the final appeal, and that it was not sufficient to establish the agreement and the sales proceeds of the pertinent business establishment. (3) Plaintiff EA stated that it was merely a joint business relationship with the pertinent business establishment, including the agreement and the sales proceeds of the pertinent case, and thus, Plaintiff EA did not have any specific reasons to see that it was an investment in the pertinent business establishment of the agreement and the two parties.

2) Whether the underlying taxation violates the underlying taxation principle

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the facts of a partnership agreement between the plaintiff and the twoCC, which has been recognized in the lawsuit related to No. 1, as well as the fact that there is no dispute between the parties in the lawsuit related to No. 2, ② the business day prepared by bothCC and the fact that the sum of cash sales, credit card sales, credit card sales, etc. in the business place of this case is indicated specifically by the date from June 14, 2006 to January 13, 207, and the settlement details by the 13th day of each month, and the distribution ratio is consistent with the facts acknowledged in the lawsuit related to No. 1 and 4:3:3, and there is no violation of the duty to taxation principles of this case.

3) Whether the right to state opinion is infringed

Article 81-5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "where a taxpayer undergoes a tax investigation, a taxpayer may have a lawyer, certified public accountant, or certified tax accountant participate in an investigation or state his/her opinion." In the case of a tax investigation, a taxpayer shall state his/her opinion to a lawyer, etc., and it does not provide for the taxpayer the right to directly state his/her opinion as alleged by the Plaintiffs. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion on different premise is without merit ( even if it is possible to recognize the general right to state opinion as alleged by the plaintiffs in the protection of the rights of the taxpayer, it is meaningful that the taxpayer shall guarantee the tax authority the opportunity to state his/her opinion, and it is not necessarily bound by the tax authority. Thus, the circumstance asserted by the plaintiffs alone does not necessarily mean that the defendant infringed the right to state opinion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the plaintiffs.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.