A. The disposition of imposition of the corporate tax of 782,658,530 won on December 1, 2008 by the head of Seocheon District Tax Office for the second period of 2004 and the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax of 293,492,940 won on December 1, 2008;

B. On December 1, 2008, the director of the regional tax office of the defendant Jungbu Regional Tax Office made the income earner a strongB, and the notification of changes in the income amount of KRW 1,750,000,000 shall be revoked each in 204.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant.

[The following table omitted]

A. Establishment of the plaintiff

On August 6, 1997, KangB, the representative director of the Plaintiff, operated a gas filling station (hereinafter referred to as the “instant filling station”) with permission from the head of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City to conduct liquefied petroleum gas filling business at 000-13m2, 305m2 and its ground buildings and facilities (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land, buildings, and facilities”). On October 26, 1999, KangB established the Plaintiff Company and caused the Plaintiff Company to conduct the said gas filling business without transferring the instant land and buildings to the Plaintiff.

B. Conclusion of the instant sales contract

On October 14, 2004, GangnamB entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with 00,000 won for the instant land and buildings, and facilities (the value-added tax of KRW 70,000,000 for the instant building). According to the list of the subject matter attached to the said sales contract (Evidence A7), the instant land price of KRW 5,750,000,00 for the instant building is KRW 342,00,00 for the purchase price, and the price of the instant facilities is KRW 358,00,00 for the instant facilities is KRW 71,00,00 for the automatic facilities and ancillary facilities, KRW 00,00 for the instant facilities and KRW 1,00 for the storage tank (30 tons), KRW 1,000 for the instant facilities, KRW 10,000 for the following 0 for the 00,000 for the 00,000 for the instant facilities:

【The following main contents of a sales contract omitted】

C. Conclusion of the instant lease agreement

Pursuant to the instant sales contract, ○○Oil concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff on November 1, 2004, with the payment of the purchase price and the completion of the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant land and buildings on November 1, 2004. From November 1, 2004 to October 31, 2009, the instant charging station was set as the lease deposit amount of KRW 500,000, monthly rent of KRW 33,000 (excluding value-added tax). According to the list of the leased leased object attached to the said lease agreement (Evidence A No. 8), the leased object is the subject matter of the instant sales contract except that the license for liquefied petroleum gas charging business was added. The main contents of the instant lease agreement are as follows:

[The following main contents of the lease are omitted]

D. Disposition of this case

(1) In relation to the transfer of the instant charging station, even though the Plaintiff transferred its business rights, such as the right to permit the liquefied petroleum gas filling business in an amount equivalent to KRW 1,750,00,000, to ○○○○○, the head of Seocheon District Tax Office did not file the instant report and filed the instant tax return including the transfer value of the instant land and buildings. While operating the instant charging station, he omitted sales of KRW 622,563,259 during the taxable period of value-added tax from 2003 to 2006. Accordingly, the head of Seocheon District Tax Office imposed the amount of sales revenue of KRW 62,563,259 on the Plaintiff on the tax base of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax for the business year 2004, from 2003 to 206, the amount of sales revenue omitted should be included in the tax base of corporate tax from 2005 to 51,510,050, as stated in the Plaintiff’s intent and portion of the pertinent tax claim.

(2) Upon receipt of an objection on February 25, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the entire disposition issued against the Plaintiff on the same day including the instant disposition. The Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on November 11, 2010 as to the instant disposition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is minor;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition should be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) As to the disposition regarding the transfer of goodwill

According to the instant sales contract, the legal status of permission for liquefied petroleum gas filling business, along with the instant land, buildings, and facilities, was merely transferred to BB to BB, and the goodwill, which is the right to business interest, such as individual customers and transaction lines, was possessed by the Plaintiff Company while doing business in the instant charging station until recently, and it did not have been transferred by the Plaintiff Company on ○○○○. Nevertheless, the instant disposition that was made on the premise that the Plaintiff transferred business rights, such as the right to permission for liquefied petroleum gas filling business, to ○○○○○ was illegal.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the right to permit the instant charging station was not transferred on 000 o’s date due to the lack of legal succession requirements in the instant complaint, the briefs dated July 6, 2011, and the briefs dated September 7, 2011, and that the right to permit the instant charging station was not transferred on 000 o’s date. However, the Plaintiff withdrawn the said assertion in the briefs dated November 1, 201.

(2) As to the omission of sale

In the event that a major taxi transportation business entity, who is a customer, has paid a certain amount of discount or paid a certain amount early, the Plaintiff’s sales amount was reduced or exempted from the sales amount, and accordingly, the Plaintiff did not evade sales. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s disposition related to the omission of sales, deeming the Plaintiff to have omitted sales to the extent of its difference, solely on the ground that the sales amount in the instant filling station system is different from the reported amount, is illegal in violation of the principle of base taxation.

(5) Of the disposition in this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the part imposing corporate tax of KRW 59,511,050 for the business year of 2005 was double taxation and there is no basis for imposition. In full view of the evidence (in particular, evidence Nos. 1-5) and evidence Nos. 1-5) and the whole purport of the pleading No. 4, the Plaintiff applied for refund of corporate tax amount by filing an application for refund of the amount of retroactive deduction for the reason that the deficit occurred in the business year of 2005, March 31, 2006, the Plaintiff paid KRW 46,230,508 to the Plaintiff. The Defendant Seocheon District Tax Office corrected the corporate tax base and tax amount for the business year of 205 and reduced the deficit of the Plaintiff in relation to the omission of the payment in the payment in this case, the Plaintiff’s legitimate disposition of KRW 50,500 for the business year of 205,250,516,257.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

(1) As to the disposition regarding the transfer of goodwill

(A) Relevant legal principles

Article 23 of the Old Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9267 of Dec. 26, 2008), Article 24(1)2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 12(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that "the amount acquired with compensation in accordance with the appropriate valuation methods taking into account the legal status such as permission and authorization for the transfer business, business convenience, geographical circumstances, business convenience, non-commercial convenience, credit, reputation, and transaction interest of the company, apart from the asset transferred or acquired in the process of transfer or acquisition of the business," shall include "the amount acquired with compensation in accordance with the adequate valuation methods, such as the transfer of the business, which is one of the intangible fixed assets of the corporation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Nu48187, Apr. 23, 1985). In addition, in ordinary sense, the term "business right" means an intangible asset value that can increase profits higher than the ordinary profits of the company that of the same kind.

(B) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the evidence evidence Nos. 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 5 through 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings at the testimony of the witness Kim H.

① Around 2004, Gangwon attempted to sell the instant charging station to raise funds for new charging stations. At the time, 000 ○○○, which exclusively supplied gas to the instant charging station, set the policy to take over the instant charging station in order not to discontinue transactions with the instant charging station, which was the largest supply station among the charging stations located in Incheon.

② During the negotiations on the purchase price for the instant charging station between ○○○ and the instant charging station, the KangB expressed his intention to continue to rent and operate the instant charging station even after the purchase, and presented 6.5 billion won for the reason that there was another company’s proposal to purchase the instant charging station at KRW 6.5 billion, and agreed to the purchase price of KRW 6,450,000,000, which was reduced by 50 million.

③ The internal review document (Evidence B Nos. 5 through 8) in relation to the instant charging station acquisition, stating that the market price of the instant land is KRW 4 billion (4 million/p. 1,750,000/p. 1,000/p. 2,500/p. 750,000 (2.5 million/p.700 tons) on the ground that the sales price of the instant land is KRW 5,750,000 (2.5 million/p. 2,500/p. 7700). While the instant building and facilities together with the instant building and facilities are adequate for the total sales price of KRW 6,450,00,000, Gangwon presented the sales price of the instant charging station to the employees, it is no longer possible to adjust the instant case while presenting it as 6,450,000,000,000,000,000,000).

④ The sales contract (No. 7) in which the steelB and 000 o’s date entered into with respect to the instant filling station (Evidence A) is indicated as KRW 6,450,000,000 the total purchase price for the instant filling station, and the purchase price for the instant land is KRW 5,750,000,000, and neither the liquefied petroleum gas filling business license nor the permanent premium is separately indicated.

⑤ On November 1, 2004, 2004, ○○ and the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the instant charging station, and on November 19, 2004, the title holder of the instant charging station changed from Gangwon to the Plaintiff.

④ Around August 2011, the Plaintiff continued to operate the instant charging station and terminated the instant lease agreement. Around that time, the Plaintiff delivered the instant charging station to JS Energy Site Gas Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “JS Energy”). On September 28, 2011, the title holder of the instant filling station’s license for liquefied petroleum gas filling business was changed into JS Energy. In addition, on August 23, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with JS Energy to transfer its business right at KRW 1 million per ton, based on the sales volume of the instant filling station’s fixed transaction place.

(C) Determination

Since there is no dispute between the parties regarding the transfer of the instant charging station to ○○○○○○ in relation to the transfer of the instant charging station, first of all, whether the party is the Plaintiff or the party who transferred the instant license on ○○○○ Date is the Plaintiff or the party BB. In full view of the evidence and the following circumstances revealed in light of the aforementioned facts, it is reasonable to deem that the transfer of the instant license to ○○○○○○ in relation to the instant charging station was a strongB.

① At the time of the transfer of the instant charging station, the title holder of the license for liquefied petroleum gas filling business was demoted.

② The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff, around November 1, 199, was operating the instant filling station business by acquiring the instant charging station business from the KangB and owned the instant facilities. However, even if the Plaintiff was assumed to have taken over the instant filling station business from the GangwonB or to have been the owner of the instant facilities, the Plaintiff is not in the position to transfer the instant filling station business license to the third party solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant facilities. [On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was taking over the instant filling station business from the GangwonB, and that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant facilities, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the instant filling station business was owned by the representative director at the time of obtaining the instant filling station permission on August 6, 1997, and that there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant facilities for the purpose of concluding the instant filling station sales contract with the Plaintiff.

Then, we examine whether the Plaintiff transferred the instant charging station business premium to ○○○O. In full view of the evidence and the following circumstances revealed in light of the aforementioned facts, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff transferred the instant charging station business premium to ○○○○○○○○ at the time of the transfer of the instant charging station between the GangwonB and the ○○○○○.

① Although ○○OO took into account the business premium based on the sales of the instant charging station in the process of calculating the sales amount of the instant charging station, it is merely one of the grounds for calculating the internal price of ○○○ Error, and there is no evidence to deem that the business premium of the instant charging station was the subject matter of the sales contract of the instant charging station.

② The instant sales contract was concluded with Gangwon to secure customers who will be supplied with liquefied petroleum gas produced by him, and the instant sales contract also provided that the instant charging station was leased to GangwonB for five years. As such, it is difficult to deem that the instant charging station was acquired by transfer and then intended to acquire the business premium by paying a separate fee.

③ Even after the instant contract was concluded, the Plaintiff, while operating the instant charging station, transferred the instant charging station to JS Energy around August 201, and received 300 million won in the name of the business proceeds. In light of this, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff continued to hold the instant charging station business rights irrespective of the instant sales contract made by ○○ YO and GangwonB, and transferred the instant charging business rights to JS Energy around August 201.

Therefore, on different premises, since the imposition of corporate tax for the year 2004 by the director of Seoin District Tax Office against the plaintiff, the imposition of the second half-year value-added tax for the year 2004 by the director of Seoin District Tax Office, and the notification of change in income amount for the year 2004 by the director of Seoin District Tax Office having the income earner as GangwonB against the plaintiff, the part concerning the transfer of business rights in the notification of change

(2) As to the omission of sale

Article 13(1) of the old Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19892 of Feb. 28, 2007) provides that the tax base of value-added tax on the supply of goods or services shall be the total amount of the price received in cash (hereinafter referred to as "value of the supply"), and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the amount of overcharge shall not be included in the tax base, and Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that the amount of the discounted value of the supply after the supply of the goods or services shall not be deducted from the tax base. Meanwhile, Article 52(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the old Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19892 of Feb. 28, 2007) provides that the overcharge value shall be the amount of direct deduction from the amount of the normal supply value at the time of the supply of the goods or services, and Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that the discounted value shall not be included in the amount of the discounted value (hereinafter referred to be less than the amount of the discounted value).

As to the instant case, the following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 11, 12, and 13.

① During the second additional tax period of 2003, the Plaintiff omitted the Plaintiff’s report on KRW 51,090,000 in total, and KRW 3,82,00 in total, sales of the JJ Driving Specialized Driving Schools Co., Ltd. and KRW 54,912,00 in total.

② From the 1st VAT taxable period in 2004 to the 2nd VAT taxable period in 2006, the sales amount calculated by aggregating sales details stored in the Point system of the instant charging station and the Plaintiff’s tax base for the value-added tax and the difference between the sales amount and the amount reported by the Plaintiff on the instant charging station are as follows.

[The following table omitted]

In light of the following circumstances, it is sufficient to view that the Plaintiff omitted 622,563,260 won in total from the sales revenue generated in the instant charging station from the second to the second taxable year from 2003 to 2006.

① In the event that a taxi transportation business entity makes an early payment to the taxi transportation business entity during the Plaintiff’s assertion, the part regarding the amount of discount at a certain amount from the sales amount constitutes the sales discount, and thus, it is not deducted from the tax base even if following

(2) When selling goods, the amount of direct deduction of a certain amount from the ordinary supply value as at the time of the supply of the goods according to the terms and conditions of the supply for the quality, quantity, and delivery and supply of the goods. The Plaintiff does not submit any materials related to sales discount, such as the ordinary supply value, the quality and quantity of the goods supplied to the other party who caused sales discount, the other party who caused sales discount, and the other party who caused sales discount, the standards for deducting sales pursuant thereto, and the details of revised tax invoices equivalent to the amount of sales discount. Under such circumstances, the head of Seoin Incheon District Tax Office, supra, shall be deemed as the tax base of the sales calculated by aggregating the details of sales stored in the distribution system of the instant charging station.

③ Even if the Plaintiff caused sales reduction to its customers, in light of the fact that the sales reduction is directly deducted from the value of supply each time of transaction (in the case of a corporation taxi, the unit price per liter stored in the Pos system is set at less than 10%, and in the case of an individual taxi, the gift certificates paid to the individual taxi are already appropriated as the initial sales incentive for each month), it is reasonable to view that the sales reduction is already deducted from the value of supply.

④ The Plaintiff asserted that the difference between the sales amount and the reported sales amount under the system is less than 1% of the total sales amount, and thus, can be recognized as necessary expenses from the calculation of corporate tax. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable, unless the Plaintiff submitted specific materials as seen earlier.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, under the premise that the Plaintiff, among the instant dispositions, transferred the instant charging station business right to the Plaintiff at KRW 1,750,000,000, the amount of KRW 1,750,000 shall be revoked on December 1, 2008, the imposition of KRW 782,658,530 for corporate tax of KRW 2004 for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2008, the imposition of KRW 293,492,940 for the second period of value-added tax of KRW 2004 for the Plaintiff, and the imposition of KRW 293,492,940 for the second period of value-added tax for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2008 by the director of the regional tax office of the regional tax office of Jungcheon-gu for the Defendant with the powerB for the Plaintiff on December 1, 204 for the income amount of KRW 1,750,00 for the year of 204.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.