종합소득세부과처분취소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From February 1, 1994 to March 11, 2008, the Plaintiff engaged in the attorney-at-law practice in the trade name called the attorney-at-law law office in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant business establishment”).
B. As a result, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff between August 11, 2014 and September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff was investigated as omitting reporting the amount of KRW 345,06,00 (i.e., the amount of KRW 102,323,000 as the amount of KRW 226,642,00 as the amount of income in 207 2008 as the amount of income in 226,642,000 as the amount of income in 2008 (hereinafter “the amount of income in this case”) from 2006 to 2008.
C. Accordingly, on January 2, 2015, the Defendant issued a correction notice to the Plaintiff respectively (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) on the aggregate of KRW 69,795,465 of global income tax for the year 2006, KRW 144,790,193 of global income tax for the year 2007, KRW 6,282,598 of global income tax for the year 2008, KRW 220,868,256 of global income tax for the year 208.
On April 1, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of Jungbu Regional Tax Office on April 1, 2015, but the director of the Regional Tax Office of Jungbu Regional Tax Office dismissed the objection on May 7,
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul Nos. 1 and 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1C was that money deposited in the key account as an employee of the patent attorney’s office, not an attorney-at-law office, was expenses such as deposit and stamp, and the clients paid the fees by holding the money directly and receiving receipt or depositing it into a bank account in the name of the attorney-at-law. The Defendant imposed tax on the Plaintiff’s income without specifically examining all the money deposited in the key account during the taxable period of about 2 years.