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

A. From September 10, 2002 to September 10, 2005, the Plaintiff served as the representative director of ○○ General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

B. On September 6, 2003, as a result of the investigation of value-added tax on the non-party company on the non-party company, the director of the Bupyeong District Tax Office notified the company that the aggregate of KRW 125,500,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as the "amount omitted from sales") of the sales revenue of the multi-household building constructed by the above company was omitted, and on the other hand, it was deemed that the omitted sales revenue was leaked out of the company and the ownership is unclear, and pursuant to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18146, Nov. 29, 2003; hereinafter the same), the non-party company disposed of it as the recognition of the plaintiff as the representative director of the non-party

C. The above company filed a revised return on the value-added tax and corporate tax for the year 2002 on the amount omitted in sales, but the plaintiff did not file a revised return on global income tax and make a voluntary payment in accordance with the above notice of change in income amount. On September 1, 2006, the defendant issued a disposition to correct and notify the plaintiff 46,485,200 won of global income tax (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") on September 1, 2006 after adding the amount of bonus disposition to the total income belonging to the plaintiff in the year 202. The plaintiff appealed against this disposition and filed the lawsuit of this case on June 17, 20

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 3, 10, Eul evidence 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is proper; and

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is null and void due to serious and clear defects as follows:

① In around 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the construction of a pelpel or retaining wall among the new construction of a multi-household house, but did not execute the construction after concluding the contract. Even if the construction was completed around March 2003, each of the above housing buildings can be deemed to have been sold only after the year 2003. Thus, the instant disposition made on the premise that the non-party company was omitted from sales in 2002 is unlawful.

(2) Even if the omission of sale was recognized, the disposition of this case, which was based on the premise that the omission of sale was out of the company, is unlawful, since it is not clear that such omission of sale was leaked out of the company.

(b) relevant statutes;

Article 40 (Business Year of Profit and Loss in Corporate Tax Act)

Article 67 (Disposal of Income)

Article 69 (Business Year in which Profits and Losses Derived from Provision of Services)

C. Determination

(1)(1) argument

In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s statements in Gap 4 and 5 evidence 1, 2, and 6 Eul’s testimony and the whole pleadings, the non-party company entered into a contract for construction work with the owner of the building on May 23, 2002 with the amount of KRW 50 million for the structural part of the apartment construction located in Seocheon-dong ○○○○○○, and entered into a contract for construction work with the owner of the building on August 25, 2002 with the head of the building on construction of the aggregate of KRW 20,950,00 for the structural part of the apartment construction located in Seoul ○○○○-dong 00,000,000 for the construction cost of the above 200,000 won for the above 50,000 won for the above 20,000 won for the new construction of the building. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction work with the owner of the building on September 9, 2002 with the head of the building.

(2) 2) The argument

Where a corporation fails to record its sales in an account book despite the fact of sales, if the amount of sales omitted is not recorded in the account book, it shall be deemed that the amount of sales omitted from the company was leaked out of the company. The revenue of the corporation shall not be disposed of as a bonus for the representative, unless it is clear that the amount of sales omitted is attributed to him/her, and in such a case, special circumstances that the amount of sales omitted is not leaked out of the company or it is clear that the ownership is attributed to him/her must be proved by the person liable for duty payment who asserts such circumstances (see, e.g.,

Therefore, as alleged by the plaintiff, the omitted amount of the sales of this case is not leaked out of the company and reserved in the company. The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the omitted amount of the sales of this case belonged to a third party, not the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.