2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. From September 22, 2003 to February 2, 2006, the Plaintiff operated a funeral hall and a funeral restaurant (hereinafter respectively referred to as “instant funeral hall” and “the instant funeral restaurant”) within the ○○ Hospital located in ○○○○○○-dong 568-1, and transferred the said funeral restaurant to Austria on or around March 2006, and operated the said funeral hall only from that time until January 19, 2009.

B. From October 9, 2008 to October 17, 2008, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the funeral hall and the funeral restaurant of this case. As a result, the amount of tax calculated based on the amount deposited in the Korean bank ○○○ branch bank account (hereinafter “instant account”) in the name of the Plaintiff, and on February 9, 2009, imposed global income tax and value-added tax on the Plaintiff on the following global income tax calculation details and the notified amount of value-added tax.

(1) Global income tax portion

(A) The Defendant determined that KRW 6,86,036,91, which deducted the output tax amount of value-added tax in the pertinent taxable period, out of KRW 6,983,795,591 deposited in the instant account during the taxable period from February 2, 2003 to February 2, 2007, was the Plaintiff’s business revenue due to the operation of the instant funeral hall and funeral restaurant.

Based on account books and other documentary evidence, the Defendant investigated the Plaintiff’s income amount out of the above income amount as KRW 729,57,659, KRW 1,486,50,080 in 204, KRW 1,369,369,360 in 205, KRW 833,932,647 in 2006, KRW 897,672,810 in 207, and KRW 897,672,81 in 207. Meanwhile, when the Defendant calculated the amount obtained by multiplying the above income amount by simple expense rate prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Plaintiff’s income amount shall be KRW 320,452,645 in 203, KRW 746,468,869 in 204, KRW 9789, KRW 971 in 2005, KRW 86,537,2006, May 16, 2007

In the case of the Plaintiff’s income amount in 2003, 2004, and 2005, the Defendant deemed that there is no necessary account books and documentary evidence in calculating the tax base because the on-site investigation income amount in the case of the Plaintiff’s income amount is excessive compared to the estimated investigation income amount, or that there is no material or false material part, and determined the estimated investigation income amount in 2006 and 2007,

(b) Calculation details of global income tax

(The following table omitted):

(2) Value-added tax portion

(A) The funeral hall business of this case is value-added tax-free business. The defendant calculated the ratio of the amount of the income of the funeral hall of this case during the period when the plaintiff operated the funeral hall of this case and the funeral restaurant of this case together (as of September 22, 2003; - No. 2006) while the plaintiff did not separately report the amount of income of the two businesses; it is impossible to calculate the amount of income of the plaintiff due to the operation of the funeral hall of this case during the above period because there was no separate account book, and it is impossible to calculate the amount of income of the plaintiff during the above period (as of March 2, 2006; - January 12, 2007; 27.91%) after the plaintiff calculated the ratio of the amount of income of the funeral hall of this case to the total amount of income of the funeral hall of this case and the funeral restaurant of this case during the period when the plaintiff operated the funeral hall of this case and the restaurant of this case together. Accordingly, the defendant calculated the tax base of value-added on the plaintiff.

(C) Details of value-added tax calculation

(The following table omitted):

C. As a result of re-audit of the revenue amount by the head of ○○○ Regional Tax Office’s order of re-audit on May 29, 2009, the Defendant determined that KRW 939,720,932, including the amount of KRW 95 million deposited in the instant account during the taxable period of value-added tax from February 2003 to February 2, 2007, among KRW 6,983,795,591, the amount of KRW 95 million deposited in the instant account during the taxable period of value-added tax, was excluded from the Plaintiff’s revenue amount (6,04,074,659 won). Here, the Defendant determined that KRW 5,942,536,491, which deducted the output tax amount of value-added tax in the relevant taxable period, was the Plaintiff’s revenue amount due to

Then, the defendant respectively decided the amount of the on-site investigation income as the income amount of the plaintiff for each business year in the case of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, on the basis of the circumstances described in the above b. (1).

For value-added tax, the ratio of the amount of income from the operation of the funeral restaurant of this case is 27.91% of the total amount of income as well as the value-added tax base for the plaintiff based on the amount equivalent to 27.91% of the above 6,04,074,659 won as well as the above 27.91% of the total amount of income.

On September 2, 2009, after determining the Plaintiff’s income amount, etc. according to the above method, the Defendant corrected the amount of the re-revision tax as indicated below (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) (excluding the imposition disposition of global income tax and value-added tax (excluding the imposition disposition of value-added tax for February 9, 2009) that was reduced on February 9, 2009 by adding the first addition in 2006 as of February 9, 209).

(The following table omitted):

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 11, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 10, Gap evidence 4, 7, 8, 18, Eul evidence 1-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Although the amount of the Plaintiff’s personal admission and withdrawal, such as the amount of the Plaintiff’s funeral restaurant receipts, transaction with his relatives, etc., and the amount of the Plaintiff’s loan collection related to the Plaintiff’s credit business included in the instant account based on the Defendant’s calculation of the Plaintiff’s business revenue, the Defendant considered the entire amount deposited into the instant account as the Plaintiff’s revenue amount, and made each of the instant dispositions based on it. This is contrary to the underlying taxation principle.

(2) The Plaintiff imposed value-added tax by deeming the amount equivalent to 27.91% of the amount deposited to the account of the instant case during the same period of time as the amount of income during which the instant funeral restaurant was operated, which was unlawful on the ground that it did not meet the requirements for estimated taxation

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) In operating the funeral hall and the funeral restaurant of this case, the Plaintiff prepared and managed the management ledger for sanitary treatment, such as dyeing, etc. (hereinafter “instant management ledger”) pursuant to Article 37(1) of the Funeral Services Act and Article 25(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. In addition, the Plaintiff prepared two copies of the account stating the deceased and the resident, the details of the requirements for various veterinary items, the guest address usage fee, safe treatment, food room, etc. (hereinafter “instant account sheet”) and delivered one of them to the resident at the time of settlement, and the remainder was kept by the Plaintiff.

(2) From the funeral hall of this case, funeral ceremony took place on the body of 2007, 36, 2003, 185, 2004, 234, 2005, 241, 250, 2007.

(3) The results of comparison between the invoice with the funeral expenses and the funeral expenses under the entire invoice, including those with no signature, signed by resident residents, etc. among the instant invoice are as follows.

(The following table omitted):

(4) According to the research paper, among the funeral homes in ○○○ City from September 1, 2005 to September 10, 2005, the total cost of funeral service is KRW 4,180,00 in a high-priced range, KRW 2,58,00 in a middle-class, KRW 1,827,00 in a low-end, and KRW 1,827,00 in a low-end, not later than 35 funeral homes.

(5) On March 2006, the Plaintiff, even after transferring the instant funeral restaurant to Lao, entered the cost of using the instant funeral hall and the funeral restaurant in the instant account and received the cost of using it from customers, and subsequently, settled the sales of the instant funeral hall and the instant funeral restaurant (However, in case where the customers pay the cost of using the credit card, the said cost of using it was separately calculated).

(6) A majority of the details of the Plaintiff’s transfer from the instant account to the account of the Lao on August 11, 2006, including transfer of KRW 30,500,000 from the instant account to the account of the Lao, etc., and there are many of the details of the Plaintiff’s deposit in cash to the account of the Lao.

(7) On June 25, 2007, the Plaintiff reported the instant account to the Defendant for a business account under Article 160-5 of the Income Tax Act.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 9-1 through 5, Gap evidence 10-1 through 35, Gap evidence 11-1 through 184, Gap evidence 12-1 through 234, Gap evidence 13-1 through 241, Gap evidence 14-1 through 250, Gap evidence 15, Gap evidence 16-1 through 5, Gap evidence 19, 20, Eul evidence 21-1 through 4, the testimony of Lee B, the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to see that the amount deposited into the instant account is the Plaintiff’s income from the operation of the funeral hall and the funeral restaurant, and there is no restriction on the objective method as long as it is possible to capture the actual income. Thus, the determination of the taxpayer’s total revenue by investigating the amount deposited into the account of the financial institution of the taxpayer constitutes a lawful on-site investigation method (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du14284, Apr. 27, 2004). However, considering the following circumstances, considering the types of operation of the funeral hall and the funeral restaurant and the method of paying the user fee, it is difficult to see that the amount deposited into the instant account is the Plaintiff’s income from the operation of the funeral hall and the funeral restaurant. ② In the course of an investigation according to the order of the Director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office, it is difficult to recognize that the amount of money deposited into the instant account was considerably more than the Plaintiff’s income from the funeral hall and the restaurant of this case, ③ the Plaintiff’s annual average number of revenues deposited 5, 9426060.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.