2. The Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff on May 7, 2007, which exceeds KRW 138,362,147, of the imposition of global income tax of KRW 165,712, and KRW 297 for the year 2004.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. The Plaintiff, a planning real estate company, established and operated BB real estate development company (BB real estate development (hereinafter referred to as “BB real estate development”), CCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”), and DDDD (hereinafter referred to as “DDDD”) in each form of establishing and operating BB real estate development company, a planning real estate company (hereinafter referred to as “B real estate development”), and conducted real estate sales business in the form of resale to the final purchasers of land, such as land located in the Seoul metropolitan area, etc.

B. Since around 2005, the Director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office conducted a general tax investigation on real estate speculation for the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff filed a final return on the tax base of global income tax for 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "final return of this case") with the defendant, who is the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment, as follows.

C. On September 2006, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff should pay the global income tax amount of KRW 700,93,400 (the global income tax amount of KRW 568,471,358 + penalty tax of KRW 132,522,042), and the Plaintiff requested the Defendant on the 25th of the same month to correct the global income amount of KRW 132,52,042 at the market price on the basis of land other than the actual sales price.

D. On April 2007, the defendant received taxation data such as the result of the tax investigation from the director of the regional tax office of Gwangju metropolitan City to the plaintiff, and filed a complaint with the Seoul Do Police Station that "Around April 2007, the plaintiff acquired 104 parcels of land, such as the transfer of land, answer, forest land, etc., from 202 to 205, and transferred the name in a short term by dividing it into 226 parcels, and registered the transfer price of land into Kim E-E, HaH and Ha II, etc., and filed a complaint that "the crime of tax evasion, etc. was committed by receiving the transfer price of land into the borrowed account of Kim JJ and Park K, etc." (hereinafter "the complaint of this case").

E. After that, on May 7, 2007, the defendant imposed upon the plaintiff 1,128,149 won in global income tax for the year 2002, global income tax for the year 2003, 15,60 won in global income tax for the year 2003, 165,712, and 297 won in global income tax for the year 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "instant disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2004"), while the defendant imposed upon the plaintiff 692075,473 won in global income tax for the year 2005 (the global income tax for the year 563,76,012 + penalty tax for the year 128,312,461 won in global income tax for the year 204).

F. The plaintiff was prosecuted on the criminal facts that "B BB movable development from around 2002 to early 2003 from around 2003, BB from around 2003 to December 2004, and DD from around June 2004 to November 2, 2004, acquired business income by selling and selling real estate in another person's name, and did not make a final return of global income tax base at the district tax office having jurisdiction over the district tax office, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on July 8, 2009 (hereinafter "criminal judgment of this case"). The criminal judgment of this case became final and conclusive on the 16th day of the same month by failing to file a final return of global income tax base at the district tax office."

G. On the other hand, the difference between the content of the instant accusation (the details of the instant decision of correction of the light disposition) and the Plaintiff’s frequency of land transaction in 2004 and 2005 in the instant criminal judgment is as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 through 6 evidence, Gap 13, 15, 19 evidence, Eul 1-1 to 4, Eul 2, 3 evidence, Eul 12-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The details of land transaction at issue

The following leaves of land transaction did not belong to the Plaintiff.

(2) Claim on the instant disposition

원고가 2004. 12. 초경 정LL에게 DDDDDD을 양도하였고 그 후 같은 달 20 일경 정LL이 DDDDDD을 통하여 박MM와 토지거래를 하였다. 또한, 김GG이 김NN, 임PP과, 고HH이 노QQ와 토지거래를 하였다. 따라서 위 각 토지거래에 따른 수입금액이 원고에게 귀속되지 않았으므로 이 사건 부과처분 중 이와 관련된 부분은 위법하다.

(3) Claim on the instant decision of correction

The Defendant appears to have obtained 152 incomes from the 152 land transaction in 2005. However, the 101 case out of the said 152 land transaction was the Y, which operated DoDD, and the remaining 51 case was the land transaction in the KimG, and the Plaintiff was not involved in the said land transaction. Accordingly, the instant decision of correction made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

(1) Main Safety Judgment

(A) The global income tax is a tax on the method of tax payment, and the amount of tax becomes final and conclusive when the taxpayer files a return on the tax base and amount of tax, and thus, the obligation to pay the principal tax on global income tax becomes final and conclusive. Hence, even if a tax payment notice was issued thereafter, it cannot be deemed a tax assessment that is subject to appeal, since it was merely an authorized disposition ordering the performance of the final and conclusive tax obligation pertaining to the principal tax on global income tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu910, Feb. 3, 1995; 2003Du8180, Sept. 3, 2004). Furthermore, the decision of revised tax amount is not an initial tax return or tax disposition and its substance is not a separate independent tax disposition, but a tax return or tax disposition has a favorable effect on the partial revocation of the amount of tax, and thus, the subject of appeal is not subject to revocation of the original decision of revised tax amount but subject to revocation. 15. 195Nu195, May 195, 195.

(B) In light of the above legal principles, although the plaintiff sought revocation on the premise that the determination of this case was a disposition imposing global income tax, the plaintiff sought revocation on the premise that the determination of this case was a disposition imposing global income tax, the following circumstances, namely, ① the tax amount of the principal tax on global income tax for 2005 and its liability for payment was determined by filing the final return of this case to the defendant around May 2006, and ② the defendant had a record of issuing a payment notice for the collection of global income tax already confirmed around September 2006, when the plaintiff did not pay global income tax after the final return of this case, and ③ The decision of this case did not constitute a separate assessment of the principal tax on the grounds that some (41,430,294 won) of the revenue in the final return of this case were reduced on the basis of the remaining revenue amount, and calculated on the basis of the remaining revenue amount, and thus, it is difficult to view the tax amount subject to revocation as a separate assessment of the final return of this case and the tax amount partially changed from the final return of this case to 3637.

(2) Judgment on the merits

(A) Determination on the instant disposition

① 원고가 2004년에 박MM와의 토지거래로 수입을 얻었는지 여부에 관하여 살펴 보건대, 이에 부합하는 듯한 증거로는 을 8호증의 9(부동산 취득 관련 질문서)의 기재 가 있고 이는 '박MM가 DDDDDD 직원의 권유로 전남 무안군 운남면 OO리 000-00 전 2832㎡를 매수하였다'는 취지인데, 갑 2호증의 1, 갑 3, 4호증, 을 8호증의 11의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉，㉠ 정RR은 경찰에서 원고와 대질신문을 함에 있어 '원고로부터 DDDDDD을 인수하여 2004. 12.경부터 2005. 5.경까지 단독으로 위 회사를 운영하였다'고 진술한 접，㉡ 위 토지에 대해 박MM 앞으로 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 날은 2004. 12. 20.인 점，㉢ 당 초 이 사건 고발내용에 박MM와의 토지거래와 관련된 부분이 포함되어 있었으나 검찰 수사 이후 기소되지 않은 점 등에 비추어 보면, 을 8호증의 9의 기재에 의하더라도 원고가 박SS와의 토지거래로 수입을 얻었다고 단정하기 어렵고, 을 8호증의 10 내지 13의 각 기재만으로 이를 인정하기에 부족하며 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다. 따라서 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 있다.

② 원고가 2004년에 김TT, 임PP과의 토지거래로 수입을 얻었는지 여부에 관하여 살펴보건대, 갑 3, 4, 16, 17호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ㉠ 김NN는 2004. 9. 15. 전남 무안군 운남면 OO리 000-0 답 1，389㎡를 매수하였고, 임PP은 같은 해 11. 10. 같은 면 연리 000-00 전 826㎡를 매수하였는데 당시 법무사 이UU가 위 각 토지에 대한 소유권이전등기업무를 대행한 것으로 보이는 점，㉡ 이UU는 '당시 김GG으로부터 위 각 토지에 대한 소유권이전등 기업무를 위임받았고 그에 대한 보수도 김GG으로부터 지급받았다'는 내용의 확인서를 작성한 점，㉢ 이 사건 고발내용에 김NN, 임PP과의 토지거래와 관련된 부분이 포함되어 있었으나 검찰 수사 이후 기소되지 않은 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고가 제출 한 증거들만으로는 원고가 김NN, 임PP과의 토지거래로 수입을 얻었다고 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다. 따라서 원고의 이 부분 주장도 이유 있다.

③ 원고가 2004년에 노QQ와의 토지거래로 수입을 얻었는지 여부에 관하여 살펴보건대, 갑 3, 4호증, 을 8호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ㉠ 행정재판에 있어서 형사재판의 사실인정에 구속을 받는 것은 아니라고 하더라도 통일한 사실관계에 관하여 이미 확정된 형사판결에서 유죄로 인정된 사실은 유력한 증거 자료가 되므로 행정재판에서 제출된 다른 증거들에 비추어 형사재판의 사실 판단을 채용하기 어렵다고 인정되는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이와 반대되는 사실을 인정할 수 없는 점(대법원 1999. 11. 26. 선고 98두10424 판결 참조), ㉡ 이 사건 확정판결에 노QQ와의 토지거래와 관련된 부분이 포함되어 있고 원고가 제출한 증거들만으로 위 형사재판의 사실 판단을 뒤집기에 부족한 점，㉢ 더욱이 원고 는 위 형사재판에서 공소사실 모두를 자백하였고 항소를 제기하지도 않았던 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고가 노QQ와의 토지거래로 수입을 얻었다고 봄이 상당하다. 따라서 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

4) Therefore, the tax assessment of this case in excess of 138,362,147 (116,190,1934, global income tax determination + penalty tax 38,728,963 – 16,557,750) is unlawful (specific calculation details are as listed in the separate sheet).

(B) Determination on the part of penalty tax during the instant decision of correction

Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, under the conditions as prescribed by individual tax-related Acts, to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, penalty taxes may be exempted from imposition only when there are justifiable grounds for not being able to cause the taxpayer’s failure to know his/her obligations, such as where the taxpayer’s intentional or negligent negligence is not considered, or where it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fulfill his/her obligations, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du4089, Apr. 15, 2005; 2005Du10545, Apr. 26, 2007). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following circumstances are that: (i) the taxpayer’s failure to report the final tax return on global income and the amount of penalty taxes for which the final tax return was made by himself/herself cannot be deemed lawful, and (ii) the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the tax amount for the final tax return on global income tax base.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit in this case, ① the part seeking revocation of the principal tax of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the part seeking revocation of the penalty tax is dismissed as it is without merit. ② The part seeking revocation of the disposition in this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.