A. All of the lawsuits against the Defendant Dobong Tax Office Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

B. The disposition of imposition of global income tax of 000 won on May 1, 2007 by the chief of the regional tax office against the Plaintiff Han-A on May 1, 2007 shall be revoked.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 50% out of the part arising between the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. and the Defendant’s salary chief, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., and the remainder 50%, shall be borne by the Defendant’s salary chief, and 30% of the part arising between the Plaintiff HanA and the Defendant’s salary chief, shall be borne by the Plaintiff HanA, and the remainder 70%, by the Defendant’s salary chief.

Purport of claim, purport of appeal and scope of trial of this court

1. Purport of claim and appeal

The decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The decision of the head of the tax office on February 22, 2007 against the Plaintiff Company (the bonus disposition of the Plaintiff and the bonus disposition of KRW 000 won against the Plaintiff) and the disposition of imposing KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the year 2001 on March 10, 2007 shall be revoked. The disposition of imposing KRW 000 of the global income tax for the year 2001 by the director of the tax office of the tax office of the Defendant Cririririririririri (the Plaintiff Han-si withdrawn the claim for cancellation of the global income tax from this court on April 4, 2007, and added the amount of the claim for cancellation of the global income tax on May 1, 2007).

2. Scope of the judgment of this court;

In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff’s claim against the director of the tax office on March 10, 2007 for the cancellation of the disposition of payment notice of the corporate tax as of March 10, 2007, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the director of the tax office on the revocation of the disposition of payment notice of the corporate tax, but was dismissed, but did not appeal against this. This part of

A. On May 19, 200, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”) transferred the instant new construction project to an O Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “O Construction”) on the transfer price of KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as “the transfer price of the instant case”) while promoting the instant new construction project in XX East apartment (hereinafter referred to as “instant new construction”).

B. The director of the tax office of the defendantdowing Tax Office deemed that it is inappropriate to regard the portion of the balance of the transfer price of this case as the accounts that 000 won (hereinafter “the balance of this case”) was transferred to KimB and rightCC, and determined the amount equivalent to the balance of this case, the representative director of which is unclear on February 15, 2007, as the bonus for Han-A and notified the plaintiff Han-A. At the same time, he notified the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the domicile of the plaintiff Han-A of the income data.

C. On April 4, 2007, the director of the regional tax office imposed a global income tax of 000 won on the Plaintiff Han on the basis of the materials on income accrued from the recognized commercial income.

D. Meanwhile, on the ground that O Construction paid 000 won for the construction price which the Plaintiff Company did not pay to the subcontractor separately from the transfer price of this case (hereinafter “the instant additional payment”), the director of the tax office of Dobong added 000 won to the Plaintiff Company’s gross income for the business year 2001, on the ground that the instant additional payment was deemed as part of the transfer price of the instant new construction business, and accordingly, on March 10, 2007, imposed corporate tax on the Plaintiff Company for the year 2001, and notified the Plaintiff Company of the amount equivalent to the instant additional payment, whose representative director is unclear, as a bonus for the Plaintiff Han-A, and at the same time, notified the Plaintiff Company of the income data recognized by the director of the tax office.

E. On May 1, 2007, the director of the regional tax office additionally imposed the global income tax of 000 won for the year 2001 on the basis of the income data recognized as the Plaintiff Han on May 1, 2007 (the director of the regional tax office of the Defendant’s regional tax office imposed the Plaintiff Han-ri on the Plaintiff Han on April 4, 2007, but imposed the global income tax of 000 won for the year 2001, and finally imposed the disposition of 000 won for the global income tax on May 1, 2007 (=00 won +00 won) on the Plaintiff of the director of the regional tax office of the Defendant’s regional tax office on May 1, 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition: Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 13, 20, 21, and 27 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the lawsuit against the head of the tax office is legitimate or not.

A. Whether a request for cancellation of notice of change in income amount is legitimate

On February 22, 2007, the Plaintiff Company sought revocation of notification of change in the amount of income on the premise that the head of the tax office of the Dobong Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of change in the amount of income stated in the purport of the claim. However, there is no evidence to deem that the head of the Dobong Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of change in the amount of income stated in the purport of the claim on February 22, 2007. This part of the lawsuit is unlawful due

B. Whether the revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax amounting to the year 2001 is legitimate

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 31, the director of the tax office on March 10, 2007 imposed corporate tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff Company for the year of 2001, but the revocation by authority on June 11, 2012 is recognized. Accordingly, this part of the lawsuit was illegal because it seeks the revocation of the disposition that had not been extinguished.

3. Determination on the main safety defense against the instant disposition

A. Main Safety Defenses

The chief of the regional tax office of the Defendant, upon the decision of the Tax Tribunal on the portion on which the Plaintiff Han-A imposed global income tax of KRW 000 on April 4, 2007. However, on the portion on which the global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2001 was increased on May 1, 2007, he did not undergo a separate decision of the Tax Tribunal. Thus, the part on the claim for revocation of the increased global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2001, which was increased on May 1, 2007, in the instant disposition, asserts that the lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) After a tax disposition has been issued, the initial taxation disposition loses its independent existence value by absorbing the increased tax amount into the increased tax amount and thus, it should also be determined on the basis of the increased tax amount. However, in a case where there are common grounds for illegality, it can be deemed that the previous appellate court provided an opportunity to re-examine the basic facts and legal issues as long as the previous trial procedure was conducted with respect to the original tax assessment. Moreover, it is harsh that a taxpayer would have caused a taxpayer to undergo a separate pre-trial procedure with respect to the increased tax amount due to the same reason. Therefore, a taxpayer may file an administrative suit seeking revocation of the increased tax amount without going through the previous trial procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu1892, Aug. 28, 190; 91Nu1329, Aug. 14, 1992).

2) The facts without dispute. According to Gap evidence No. 8, the imposition of global income tax on April 4, 2007 by the plaintiff Han-A was made upon request on June 14, 2007 by the National Tax Tribunal for a trial on the disposition of global income tax, which was rendered on June 14, 2007, and went through legitimate pre-trial procedure. The imposition of global income tax on April 4, 2007 by the defendant Tririririririririririririririririririririririririri was made by the plaintiff Han-si because the plaintiff company omitted the balance of this case and its attribution is unclear. The imposition of global income tax on May 1, 2007 also was made by recognizing the plaintiff Han-A as the imposition of global income tax on the ground that the plaintiff company omitted the additional payment of this case and thus its attribution is unclear. < Amended by Act No. 8794, Apr. 27, 2007>

3) Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the disposition of global income tax imposed on April 4, 2007 and May 1, 2007 by the chief of the regional tax office of the Defendant had both been taken by recognizing and approving the portion out of the transfer price of the new construction project in the instant case, and the Plaintiff Han-A also asserted that all of the disposition of global income tax imposed on April 4, 2007 and May 1, 2007, the period of attribution of the amount out of the company was different. Thus, the Plaintiff Han-A’s disposition of global income tax imposed on April 4, 2007, as long as the imposition of global income tax imposed on April 4, 2007 under the legitimate procedure of the previous trial, can seek its revocation without undergoing a separate procedure of the previous trial. The allegation made by the chief of the regional tax office of the Labor Relations without merit is without merit.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff Han-A's assertion

1) Since the notice of change in the amount of income, which is the premise of the instant disposition, was not legally served on the Plaintiff Company, the instant disposition is also unlawful.

2) The remainder of the instant case and the instant additional payments did not belong to the Plaintiff Han-A, and even if they were reverted to, it should be deemed that they were reverted to the year 2001, not to the year 2000.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On May 20, 200, the Plaintiff Company completed the registration of ownership transfer on the apartment site according to the instant new construction project, and delivered the already built building, etc. On May 29, 200, the Plaintiff Company changed the name of the project implementer and the contractor to the O Construction, and the O Construction completed the acquisition of the instant new construction project from the Plaintiff Company and completed the new construction and sale of the apartment in the business year 2000.

2) Around May 2000, Plaintiff Company received the instant balance of O Construction with a claim by means of receiving a written statement of payment due to OB’s funding. On May 26, 2000, Plaintiff Company transferred the part of the instant remainder of claims, which was KRW 000,000, to ACC, and on June 2, 2000, drafted a certificate of assignment (No. 17 evidence) to the effect that the said part of KRW 00,00,000, was transferred to AO, and that the said part of KRW 00,00,00, was transferred to KimB.

3) After doing so, OB treated the remainder of the instant outstanding claim (total 000 won) that was transferred to NA as the substitute payment for the portion of KRW 000 as to the instant outstanding claim (total 000 won) and treated the remainder of the instant claim as being transferred to NA and KimB (or a third party, such as DaD, EE, etc. to which the instant remainder claim was transferred again from them) from June 21, 200 to May 11, 2001. On the other hand, at around that time, six households among the seven households of apartment, were transferred to NAF, and the remainder of one household was transferred to NA.

4) The Plaintiff Company dealt with the settlement of accounts of the instant remaining claims in relation to the repayment of the instant claims or payment in substitutes, or cash payments after cash payments.

5) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff Han-A borrowed a total of KRW 000 from the KimF until 2000, and KRW 000 from thisG.

6) During the National Tax Service’s tax investigation, the rightCC and KimB stated to the effect that “The fact that they received the instant balance claim, transferred it to a third party, received repayment or payment in lieu thereof, or transferred an apartment acquired by payment in lieu of the instant remainder obligation to a third party,” and that Plaintiff HanA made the appearance of the said transaction without permission using its name.

7) In the National Tax Service’s tax investigation, KimF also stated to the effect that the said six units of apartment houses were transferred as payment in lieu of the claims that Plaintiff Han-A would have been repaid from the National Tax Service.

8) In addition to the transfer price of this case between May 23, 2000 and June 12, 2001, the O Construction paid 000 won for the construction price that the Plaintiff Company did not pay to the subcontractor.

9) The Plaintiff Company closed its business on December 31, 2001.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 9, Eul from 17 to 19, 23 to 26, the purport of the whole pleadings]

C. Determination

1) First of all, we examine the allegation that it is unlawful without notifying the Plaintiff company of the change in income amount. The head of the Defendant’s Provincial Tax Office, pursuant to the proviso to Article 192(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22560, Dec. 30, 2010) and Article 86 of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 11125, Dec. 31, 201), notified the Plaintiff Company of the change in income amount to the Plaintiff Company, deeming that there is no possibility for the Plaintiff Company to suspend its business and receive a disposition of bonus (Evidence No. 22). The Defendant’s failure of the Plaintiff Company to notify the change in income amount to the Plaintiff Company is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2) Next, we examine whether the instant balance was or was attributed to the Plaintiff Han in 2001. In order for the tax authorities to impose the income tax on the Plaintiff Han who is the representative director of the Plaintiff Company due to the attribution of income or the outflow from the company, the tax authorities must assert and prove the fact that the income was attributed to or out of the company in the pertinent year of accrual.

According to the above facts, it is determined that the Plaintiff Company transferred the remainder of the claim of this case to 20G 1, which was the Plaintiff’s income by using the name of KimF and LeeB around 00, to 3G 200. Meanwhile, since the transferor’s transfer of nominative claim did not oppose the obligor and other third parties (Article 450(1) of the Civil Act), the remainder of the claim of this case will be attributed to 1G 20 and the Plaintiff’s transfer of the claim of this case to 2G 00, which was the remainder of the claim of this case to 20G 1, and it is difficult to view that the remainder of the claim of this case was attributed to 30G 20, which was due to the fact that the Plaintiff’s transfer of the claim of this case was due to the fact that the Plaintiff had been due to the settlement of the claim of this case to 3G 20,000, and there was no possibility that there was any balance of the claim of this case to 2G 0G 200, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case.

3) Finally, whether the instant additional payments were or were attributed to the Plaintiff Han in the year 2001. The instant additional payments should be included in the gross income of the Plaintiff Company, and the period of inclusion is from May 23, 2000 to June 12, 2001, the date when the instant additional payments were paid to the subcontractor. However, the time when the instant additional payments were not industrialized as gross income cannot be deemed as belonging to, or was out of the company from, the time when the instant additional payments were not industrialized as gross income, and separately, the amount equivalent to the instant additional payments should be attributed to, the Plaintiff Han, or should be proved as to, the amount of the instant additional payments. Accordingly, there is no special assertion or proof by, the director of the tax office of the Defendant Jeonju Tax Office, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

4) Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as there is no evidence proving the legitimacy of the disposition (the Defendant’s chief of the tax office, also, stated that there is no additional evidence proving that there was no additional evidence to prove that the time and amount of the income accrued to the Plaintiff Han-A as of 2001 in this court, which was reversed.

5. Conclusion

All of the lawsuits against the defendant of the plaintiff company against the director of the Dobong Tax Office are dismissed as unlawful, and the claims against the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the Dobong Tax Office shall be accepted. The judgment of the court of first instance is so unfair as to have different conclusions, and it is modified as ordered