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

Cheong-gu Office

On March 28, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of global income tax and additional tax OOOOO in 2006 against the Plaintiff.

"BB" (hereinafter referred to as "B") conducted a tax investigation on January 7, 2002 with respect to the non-party 2B (hereinafter referred to as "B") company established by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's mother KimCC (the 10 February 10, 1928), and the plaintiff has been operating the above company as the representative who actually led the management of BB," and "B." The head of the Yangyang Tax Office notified the plaintiff of the tax disposition of the global income belonging to the plaintiff 20 years from April 1, 2010 to June 20, 2010, and the non-party 20 years from the plaintiff's working as a director (hereinafter referred to as "Dized Telecom"), and the disposition of disposition of disposal of the global income belonging to the plaintiff 20 years from the above global income tax investigation (purchase) and the tax disposition belongs to the plaintiff 20 years from the above global income tax investigation.

Classification

Details of income;

Amount (won)

Jinay

204

Wage and salary income from BB

(A) The plaintiff is entitled to receive the name of the vehicle.

OOO

The part for which the Tax Tribunal received the plaintiff's appeal.

B Processing Construction Costs of the BB

(Income disposition by recognizing the plaintiff as his representative)

OOO

Part not dissatisfied with the Plaintiff’s appeal

Wage and salary income from the Delcom

OOO

Part not dissatisfied with the Plaintiff’s appeal

total of 2004

OOO

Part not dissatisfied with the Plaintiff’s appeal

206

Wage and salary income from BB

(A) The plaintiff is entitled to receive the name of the vehicle.

OOO

Of the disposition of this case, the part that the plaintiff is disputing the lawsuit of this case

BB Processing and Purchase

(Income disposition by recognizing the plaintiff as his representative)

OOO

Business income from BB

OOO

Part not dissatisfied with the Plaintiff’s appeal

Wage and salary income from the Delcom

OOO

Total amount of 2006

OOO

Imposition of global income tax OOOO

(Disposition of this case)

". The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 17, 2012 against the defendant's disposition on March 28, 2012, including the disposition in this case. The Tax Tribunal accepted the plaintiff's appeal on the ground that "the exclusion period of national tax assessment was already over the part of the global income tax for 2004 years from the above disposition on March 14, 2014," but the appeal against the part of the disposition in this case was dismissed."

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Claim on the part of earned income

In rendering the disposition of this case, the defendant considered that the plaintiff received OOO's benefits from BB as a tea, but the plaintiff did not receive the above money.

2) The assertion as to the portion of recognized contribution

In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant: (a) deemed the OOO that BB processed with the purchase cost for EE Telecom as the processing cost; and (b) disposed of the income by recognizing the Plaintiff as the representative; (c) however, the Defendant did not reveal that the said cost was spent outside, and there was no fact that the said amount was reverted to the Plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the part on earned income

In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen by adding up the overall purport of the pleadings to the statements in the evidence Nos. 6 and 8 as seen earlier, the instant disposition is deemed legitimate on the premise that BB was actually reverted to the Plaintiff by the OOO members, who were disbursed as remuneration or payment fees to Nonparty FF, YangG, and Kim H in 2006.

① At the time of 2006, this Section, which was in office as the representative director of BB, recognized that the Plaintiff has paid benefits in the form of salary and business income under the name of next person in the course of investigating BB.

② Meanwhile, the evidence No. 8-2 stated that the Plaintiff was a content certificate sent to BB by the Plaintiff, and according to the above statement, the Plaintiff established BB around January 2002, and the officers and employees of the Plaintiff were growing up to the company for the last five years, and the Plaintiff was receiving benefits in another person’s name because of various circumstances, even though he wanted to receive benefits in his own name, and the Plaintiff was also a person who was receiving benefits from BB by using another person’s name. In addition, the evidence No. 8-1 stated that the Plaintiff was a benefit contract between the Plaintiff and BB, which is a benefit contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and according to this contract, it seems possible for the Plaintiff to receive benefits by using another person’s name from BB to his own account as necessary.

③ A tax investigation by the head of the Goyang Tax Office, which was the basis of the instant disposition, started with the Plaintiff’s information, and BB, after the tax investigation, was all persons of the basis details of the instant disposition (the aforementioned table) and paid corporate tax accordingly.

④ Since the Plaintiff actually operated BB, it was also possible to secure taxation data. However, there was a finding that the Plaintiff received benefits by using another person’s name, etc., the Plaintiff merely asserted that the said OOO was not reverted to the Plaintiff. Specifically, the Plaintiff did not express that the part was reverted to the Plaintiff and did not constitute any part.

Ultimately, this case’s disposition is lawful on the premise that the above OOO members actually belonged to the Plaintiff as salary.

2) The assertion as to the portion of recognized contribution

Where a corporation fails to record its sales in the account book despite the fact of sales or appropriates the cost of processing in the account book, barring any special circumstance, the profit of the corporation equivalent to the omitted sales or the cost of processing shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the account book, and in this case, the special circumstance to deem that the total amount omitted sales, etc. was not leaked out of the account book requires proof from the corporate side claiming it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du11797, Jan. 12, 2006). The revenue of the corporation that was withdrawn from the account must be proved by the tax authority as long as it is unclear that the revenue of the corporation is not attributed to it, Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 (1) 1 (proviso) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24357, Feb. 15, 2013). In such a case, the burden of proving it shall be borne by the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 200OO2000, Mar. 28, 2013.

In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff must bear the burden of proof as to the fact that BB's representative director KimJ and managing director Park KK was subject to a tax investigation on or around June 2010, and that the purchase transaction on the Etecom is a processed transaction. Through this, as long as it is revealed that BB's purchase cost for Ecomcom is a processed transaction, it shall be deemed that BB's accounting book processing cost is a processed transaction. Thus, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof as to the fact that the money is not leaked outside of the company and exists within BB, or that there is a separate owner. The plaintiff merely claims that the above money is not clear in the way of outflow from the company or that the above money was not actually attributed to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff's allegation in this part is not acceptable.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, we cannot accept all the plaintiff's argument.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.