2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 1, 2003 to 200 ○○○○○○○○○○ building located in ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff operated a bath business and a real estate rental business with the trade name called “○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○”. From June 22, 2004, the Plaintiff reported the global income tax belonging to 204 to the Defendant on the basis of 349,25,34,349,35,362,762,842, or 467, 207, 365, 206, 206, 367, 467, 206, 367, 467, 205, 206, 206, 367, 367, 467, 206, 367, 2065, etc.

C. The plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review on June 5, 2006 with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service accepted the plaintiff's claim on October 30, 2006 that income and necessary expenses should be excluded from calculation of the plaintiff's tax base, and decided to revise the global income tax base and tax amount calculated by subtracting 49,539,500 won including the plaintiff's income from total income and necessary expenses corresponding thereto from total income and 42,430,000 won from total income and necessary expenses, and dismissed the plaintiff's remaining claims. After that, the defendant corrected the amount of tax notified under the above Paragraph (b) above on November 6, 2006 to reduce 3,173,790 won, the tax disposition against the plaintiff was 89,35,690 won for global income tax for 204 (=92,529,400,317,790 won for global income from Gap's final appeal and 20500 won for the plaintiff's tax base.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

"The plaintiff's tax base and tax amount of global income tax for 2004 shall be recognized as having been omitted from the total amount of income. However, the necessary expenses corresponding to 715,36,857 won recognized as total amount of income for bathing business in 2004 as a result of the investigation into the workplace of this case shall be charged to the plaintiff's total income for 205,32,172, general purchase expenses on the Value-Added Tax Return, 365,32,172, 68,230, and 74,630,630,252, including the above amount of total income for 205,000,000 won for total income for 205,000,000 won for total income for 25,000,000 won for total income for 20,000,000 won for 25,000,000,000 won for total income for 25,04,06,07,0.

The part of the necessary expenses claimed by the Plaintiff, which can be additionally recognized, shall be limited to a total of KRW 488,046,976, as stated in each Defendant’s argument in the attached Table 1. Therefore, even if the additional inclusion of necessary expenses for domestic affairs is recognized, the Plaintiff’s assertion that excess of the above amount should be included in necessary expenses is groundless.

(b) Related statutes;

C. Determination

(1) In a case where a tax authority finds that a taxpayer’s income was omitted in the initial return due to a method of on-site investigation, barring special circumstances, such as where the account book or other documentary evidence revealed that necessary expenses, such as purchase cost, were separately paid by the relevant taxpayer, such as the account book or other documentary evidence, such fact shall be deemed to have been included in the total necessary expenses corresponding to the total income amount. Unlike the method of determining the total necessary expenses, the deductible expenses corresponding to the omission amount shall not be separately calculated and deducted by the method of on-site investigation, rather than by the method of on-site investigation. If a taxpayer who seeks to include necessary expenses intends to obtain a deduction on the ground that there was an omission of the purchase cost corresponding to the omission of the sales amount, the tax authority should consider that there is a need to assert and prove the existence and amount of other expenses, other than the reported expenses, by presenting the account book and documentary evidence about the specific expenditure amount, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995).

(2) In light of the above legal principles as seen above, Gap 3-1, 3, 10 through 13, Gap 4-1 through 3, Gap 5-1 through 7-27, Gap 9-1, 14-1, 2, 15-1, 19-1 to 20-1, 4-1, 4-1, 7-1, 4-4, 7-1, 7-4, 40-1, 6-4, 7-1, 7-4, 7-4, 40-1, 7-4, 7-4, 40-1, 7-4, 7-4, 40-1, 7-4, 7-4, 40-1, 7-4, 7-4, 40-6, 40-1, 7, 40-5, 16-4, 40-6, 70-1, 47,

(3) Part not recognized as necessary expenses

(A) With respect to the portion of the [Attachment 1] necessary expenses portion, 130,273,880 won obtained by subtracting KRW 84,894,120, which the Plaintiff claimed as necessary expenses from KRW 215,168,00, which is claimed as necessary expenses, as seen earlier, from KRW 215,168,00, 130,273,880, which is considered as necessary expenses by this court, is not sufficient to acknowledge the portion of the [Attachment 1] necessary expenses portion by only the descriptions of evidence No. 3-15, No. 3-15, and evidence No.

(B) With respect to the management expenses portion of the general purchase expenses under Paragraph (1) of the attached Table 1 of the Value-Added Tax Return under Paragraph (2) of the attached Table 1, as seen in the above, 193,101,244, which the Plaintiff claims as necessary expenses, 16,578,943 won remaining after deducting 176,52,301 won as deemed necessary expenses by this court from the amount of 193,101,244, which the Plaintiff claims as necessary expenses, shall be examined as to whether it can be recognized as necessary expenses, and the above difference portion shall constitute the input tax amount of value-added tax as stated in the management expenses calculation statement that the court considers as necessary expenses by this court in attached Form 2(a) and shall not be deducted from the total revenue amount under Article 33(1)9 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7120, Jan. 29

(C) With respect to the part concerning the general expenses on the receipt and disbursement of money as indicated in the attached Table 1 (3), it is not sufficient to recognize the occurrence of the general expenses of KRW 68,956,850, which is claimed by the Plaintiff, solely on the basis of each of the records stated in the evidence No. 4-20, and No. 8, and the above 68,956,850, which are alleged by the Plaintiff as necessary expenses, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(D) With respect to the insurance premium under paragraph (4) A of the attached Table 1 necessary expenses, 5,269,173 won, which is the remainder of KRW 7,914,60,60, which is claimed by the Plaintiff as necessary expenses, subtracting KRW 2,645,427, which is deemed as necessary expenses by this court, from the amount of KRW 7,914,60,60, which is claimed as necessary expenses, shall be examined as to whether it can be deemed necessary expenses. According to Article 33(1)14 of the Income Tax Act, prepaid expenses are not

Since the above insurance premium can only be counted as necessary expenses only for 2,645,427 won as seen earlier, 5,269,173 won exceeding the above amount can not be counted as necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in 2004 by the Plaintiff.

(E) In relation to the cost of cleaning under Paragraph (d) of the attached Table 1, among insurance premiums and other expenses under Paragraph (4) of the attached Table 1, it is not sufficient to recognize the occurrence of the cost of washing money of KRW 14,773,600, which the Plaintiff asserted as necessary expenses, solely on the basis of each description of No. 4 through No. 4-20 of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 14,773,600, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(4) Justifiable tax amount

The reasonable amount of tax calculated by deeming the aforementioned KRW 488,046,976 as necessary expenses is KRW 44,311,230, as indicated in the “justifiable Tax Amount” column in the attached Table 3 of the assessment of tax amount. As such, the portion exceeding the aforementioned legitimate amount of tax out of the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified only for the portion exceeding the above legitimate tax amount, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.