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

The disposition of imposition of KRW 10,254,960, corporate tax for the year 201, imposed on the Plaintiff by the former Defendant on September 1, 2014, shall be revoked, and the notice of change in the amount of income made on August 21, 2014 shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs a public housing and a building management service business, whose main revenue is to entrust the management of multi-family housing and receive entrusted management fees.

B) 1) The 00 Energy Co., Ltd. supplied heat heating to 7 apartment complexes of 00 square meters managed by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 00 apartment houses), and issued a total of 6 electronic tax invoices on January 31, 201 with the name of the person being supplied as 00 local headquarters of 00 housing construction. 2) Moreover, the 000 2 apartment complexes of 00 square meters managed by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 00 apartment houses), and issued 12 electronic tax invoices in total under the Plaintiff’s name of 00 apartment houses (hereinafter referred to as “10 apartment houses”), and 200,000 20,000,000,000,000,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “20,000,000 won”) and 20,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “20,010,000 won) and 20,000.

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on November 10, 2014, but was dismissed on December 18, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

It is true that the Plaintiff’s tax invoices Nos. 1 and 2 in the calculation of deductible expenses and included them in the calculation of deductible expenses. However, in response to the Plaintiff’s purchase of expenses unrelated to the Plaintiff’s business and the exclusion of deductible expenses, it is not the Plaintiff’s sales but the official price management expenses for 00 apartment houses included in the calculation of gross income, and the official price management expenses and inspection allowances for 00 apartment houses should be included in the calculation of gross income. Accordingly, even if the tax invoices Nos. 1 and 2 in the calculation of gross income are excluded from deductible expenses, the same amount should be included in the calculation of gross income. Accordingly, the tax base income related to the tax invoices No. 1 and 2 in the instant case

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination on the assertion that official price management expenses and inspection allowances should be excluded from gross income

The statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 11 alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff's official price management expenses for the construction of 000 apartment, and the official price management expenses for the 00 apartment, and the inspection allowances for the 00 apartment are not the plaintiff's sales, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the 00 apartment is the expenses corresponding to the management office expenses, etc. incurred in the entrusted management of the apartment of 000 apartment and the official price management expenses, etc. paid by the 00 apartment to the 00 apartment and paid by the 00 apartment to the 00 apartment.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

D. Determination on the illegality of the representative bonus disposition and notice of change in income amount

As to the bonus disposition of the representative, the amount of supply stated in the tax invoice Nos. 1 and 2 of this case (the amount appropriated as the processing expenses) shall not be deemed to have been leaked as it was not paid by the plaintiff, and therefore, it shall be deemed to be unfair to dispose of

According to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if a corporation omits taxable income by omitting sales or appropriating expenses, if it is clear that the amount included in gross income has leaked out of the company, the tax authority shall dispose of it as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company, etc. according to the person to whom it belongs: Provided, That if it is clear that it was released from the company, but it is unclear who is the person to whom it belongs, the tax authority shall dispose

The purpose of the corporate tax law is to allow the representative to consider certain facts that can be recognized as such in order to prevent an unfair act under tax law by a corporation, not based on the fact that such income has accrued to the representative (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu3120, Jul. 14, 1992). Thus, where a corporation fails to enter the sales in the account book despite the fact of sales or appropriates the cost of processing in the account book, the corporate income equivalent to the omitted sales or the cost of processing shall be deemed to have been leaked to the outside, barring special circumstances, and in this case, it is necessary to prove that the total amount of the omitted sales, etc. is not leaked to the outside (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1797, Jan. 12, 2006).

The statements in Gap evidence Nos. 13, 14, and 15 alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff did not escape from the company for the business year 2011 (the value equivalent to the supply price of the tax invoices No. 1 and 2 of this case). Since there is no other evidence to recognize this, it is reasonable to dispose of the amount by recognizing the plaintiff's representative, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.