The disposition of imposition of KRW 41,547,190, value-added tax for the first term of February 1, 2008, value-added tax for the first term of 2004, value-added tax for the second term of 2004, KRW 22,372,770, and KRW 95,952,030, the special consumption tax for the year 2004, and the disposition of imposition of KRW 28,129,360, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on February 11, 2008 by the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Defendant calendar, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 50% of the remainder shall be borne by the Defendants respectively.

A. From April 1, 2003 to June 1, 2005, the Plaintiff jointly operated entertainment tavern (hereinafter “instant place of business”) with the Plaintiff’s share of 27% and with the trade name called “○○○○○○○○-dong 1117-7, ○○○○○○○,” along with the Plaintiff’s share of 27%, and registered in the name of “E” from November 2004 to June 11, 2005, and in the name of “FF” from November 2004. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18743, Apr. 1, 2003; Presidential Decree No. 18505, Jun. 11, 2005>

B. Joint business operators of the instant business place reported and paid value-added tax for the pertinent period of time on the sales amounting to KRW 2,020,268,00, KRW 2004 sales amounting to KRW 1,284,839,00, and KRW 1,205 sales amounting to KRW 526,539,00 ( KRW 508,463,000 from January 2005 to May 200).

C. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on the instant workplace from June 20, 2007 to December 31, 2007, the ○○ regional tax office identified the omitted income as KRW 90,534,00 ( KRW 47,797,000 for year 2004, KRW 512,737,00 for year 205, and KRW 512,77,000 for year 205) and notified the Defendants of the taxation data.

(1) The basis for calculation of KRW 477,797,00 (one term amount of KRW 307,591,000, two term amount of KRW 170,206,00) in 204

"One Bank Account (Account Number 000, Number 000, Number 2000, Number 2000, Number 2000, Number 2000, Number 2000, Number 2000, Number 2000, Number 2000, Number 200, Number 2000, Number 200, Number 200, Number 2007, Number 200, Number 200, Number 200, Number 200, Number 200, Number 200, Number 200, Number 20, Number 200, Number 20, Number 200, Number 20, Number 200, Number 20, Amount 200, or 20, Amount 20, or 200, Value 30, or 200, Amount 20, or 200, amount 20, or 30,00.

The sum of sales during the pertinent period stated in the sales status (No. 16 evidence No. 2) by the head of the department in 2005, the file of documents restored from the hard disc used by the computer in the instant workplace, shall be deemed the total sales amount during the pertinent period, and the amount calculated by deducting the amount reported as the sales amount during the pertinent period from the amount initially reported as value-added tax from

D. The head of ○○○ Tax Office calculated value-added tax and special consumption tax by including omitted income from taxation data in the tax base of the value-added tax and the special consumption tax in the pertinent taxable period. On February 1, 2008, he notified the Plaintiff, a joint business proprietor, of the value-added tax 41,419,370 won in total (including education tax) of value-added tax 22,372,770 won in 204, value-added tax 22,372,70 won in 204, value-added tax 64,418,420 in 205, and special consumption tax (including education tax) for 141,419,370 won in 204 (including 95,952,030 won in 204 + 45,467,340 won in 205).

E. On February 11, 2008, the director of the regional tax office issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax amount of KRW 28,129,360, and the global income tax of KRW 28,990,620 for the year 2004 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on February 11, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6 through 11, 13, and 14 (including each number); the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Each account in the name of KimE, the largest F, and HaG cannot be deemed as an account related to the sales of the instant workplace for the following reasons.

① Each account in the name of KimE and the largestF was used by them for the bond business, the car brokerage business, etc., and the account in the name of HG was used by HG HaG HaG HaG HaG HaG HaG HaG Ha, not otherwise related to the sales of the instant place of business.

② Even if the transaction details of each account in the name of KimE, the largestF, and the HG are relatively small and the same person repeatedly deposits, it cannot be deemed that the transaction details of the general liquor price are not the same.

③ The most FF served as the chief in 2004 and as the president in 2005. The account in the name of the largest FF is an account in the name of the chief in 2004, and even if there is no difference in the transaction details at the time of the president in 200, the account in the name of the largest FF is all irrelevant to the sales of the instant workplace.

④ From May 2003 to October 2004, the maximum amount of the FF served in the instant workplace from January 2004 to May 2005, 2005, and HGG from June 2003 to June 2004. Each account in the name of KimE, the largest FF, and the HGG is an account in no relation to the sales of the instant workplace, even if there is no difference in the working period and the details of transactions at the time when the working period is not the period.

(2) The current status of sales by division in 2005 (No. 16) cannot be confirmed as to whether it was restored from a computer used in the instant workplace, and the content thereof cannot be seen as having been produced by accurate data.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the foregoing taxation data is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the disposition of this case was lawful in the part of value-added tax, special consumption tax, and global income tax in 204

Where the tax authority imposes additional taxation, the method and content of estimation should be reasonable and reasonable so that it can reflect the most real amount close to the truth. The tax authority's total amount deposited in several financial institutions accounts managed by the representative director of the corporation due to the omission of sales of the corporation which is a taxpayer and overlaps by calculating the amount returned from other accounts. The representative director includes not only the income of other companies operated in the same area as that of the pertinent tax payment corporation, but also the income of other companies operated in the same area separate from the pertinent tax payment corporation. If the representative director at the discount of bills from the customer for financing without any transaction, and if the amount deposited at the request of the financial institution for collection is also calculated, the tax authority should regard the above amount as the omission of sales and thereby impose corporate tax, value-added tax, etc. in the form of additional taxation is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1779 delivered on Nov. 12, 196).

Considering the above evidence and evidence Nos. 14-1 and 15-2 of the evidence, and the following circumstances recognized by the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial, the highest FF of the witness of the first instance trial, and the witness KimE of the first instance trial, there are circumstances in which some of the accounts in the name of KimE, the lowest FF, and HII cannot be deemed as the income amount of the business place of the instant case. As such, the method of calculating the omitted income amount of the instant disposition in 2004 cannot be deemed reasonable, the part of the value-added tax, the special consumption tax, and the global income tax of the instant disposition is unlawful.

(A) The ○○○ Regional Tax Office, as it is impossible to conduct a field inspection by books, etc. at the instant workplace, identified most of the deposits from each account in the name of the president, or employees, KimE, MaximumF, and subordinate II as the omitted income amount of the instant workplace. As to the deposit amount of the said account, the ○○ Regional Tax Office did not undergo the process of excluding the omitted income in the case of personal transactions of the account holders, not the deposit amount, but the deposit amount.

(B) The following transactions in the accounts identified as the omitted income amount by the ○○ Regional Tax Office shall not be deemed the omitted income amount of the instant workplace (hereinafter referred to as “the number is the number of No. 13-1 (OOO)”).

(1) The amount of deposits cancelled shall be counted as revenue amount.

(2) Double appropriation of the same amount.

On January 17, 2004, 200 won (KK, No. 28), 1,600,000 on January 16, 2004 (LL, No. 43), 17 January 17, 2004, and 1,000,000 won (e.g., DomM, DomM, 51), among the accounts in the HG’s name, were identified as income omitted, while the remittance of KRW 2,00,000,000, most of which are the balance on January 17, 2004, was also identified as omitted income (number 53). < Amended by Act No. 720, Jan. 17, 2004>

(3) The account holder deposits into his own account.

(C) At the time of the initial investigation by the ○○○ Regional Tax Office, KimE and the MF stated that their accounts are accounts to prevent customers from receiving credit payments. However, the testimony at the court of first instance and the court of first instance changed the statement to the effect that the above accounts are personal transactions related to their own bond business or car brokerage business and are unrelated to the instant business place. However, it is difficult to believe the entire account. However, there are circumstances in which some of the above accounts’ deposits cannot be viewed as personal transactions by the account holder, to the extent of credibility in the above statement.

(D) In addition, in a case where the tax office filed a complaint against the plaintiff et al. on suspicion of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the prosecutor's office rendered a non-prosecution disposition against the plaintiff et al. on the ground that the amount deposited to the above account is merely the estimated amount of credit sales at the instant workplace, and that there

(2) Whether the disposition of this case was lawful in the part of value-added tax, special consumption tax, and global income tax in 205

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective statements and arguments of evidence Nos. 3, 5, 12, 15, 16, and 20 among the dispositions of this case, the method of calculating the amount of income omitted in the year 2005 among the dispositions of this case is deemed reasonable. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

① In addition to the sales status by department in 2005 (Evidence No. 16), there are documents files that secure and restore a computer used in the instant workplace at the time of tax investigation, including a sales status list by department head (Evidence No. 20), ○ emergency liaison network (Evidence No. 15, No. 20), and a store operating contract. This appears to have been prepared by the Plaintiff while operating the instant workplace, and there are no other circumstances to deem that the Defendants operated the said documents.

② After the Plaintiff transferred the instant place of business, the headN, which has overall control over the accounting and funding-related affairs of the instant place of business, calculated the “gold Month on the last day of each month” by head of the department from among the gold Daily (at the end of each business day, by comparing the old account books and the daily total sales day with each other). This stated that it is necessary to compile monthly sales by head of the department for the settlement of accounts between joint business operators (Evidence 5) and the Plaintiff’s operation of the instant place of business in the same manner on the same grounds.

③ GamblingD, which is a 10% equity right holder of the instant business establishment and joint business proprietor, jointly and severally liable for the value-added tax and special consumption tax on the instant business establishment, was in line with the name of the head of each department at the time of the tax investigation in 2005, and the name of the head of each department at the time of the tax investigation was in line with the name of the head of each department at the same time in 2005, and his name was in line with the name of the head of each department at the time of the tax investigation.

④ The amount deposited in each account in the name of Kim business, the head of the last office, the head of the subordinate office, and the head of the subordinate office and the amount deposited in each account in the name of Kim Jong-G in 2005, the sales status of which was entered in the current status of sales by the head of the department in 2005.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, part of the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the disposition of imposition of value-added tax, special consumption tax, and global income tax in 2004 among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.