Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

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

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on March 5, 1997 and established on OOO-dong 1142-2 of the OO-dong 1197, which conducts non-structure dismantling construction business, Boringging construction business, earth construction business, and construction business.

B. The defendant conducted a tax offense investigation against the plaintiff on July 2010 and notified the plaintiff that the plaintiff should pay the above corporate tax for the business year A, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "the notice of the change in the income amount of this case") on the ground that the plaintiff is processed expenses for the business year of 2008.8. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22008, Aug. 4, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 220083, Feb. 2008; Presidential Decree No. 200677, Jan. 7, 2011>

D. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 21, 201. On September 30, 201, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that "the tax base and amount of corporate tax for the business year of 2008 shall be revised" (Article 201Da1584, hereinafter referred to as the "re-investigation decision of this case"). "E. The defendant, after re-investigation, recognized the amount of OObs in the claim for extra expense of the plaintiff as deductible expenses, reduced the amount of 2008 corporate tax for the business year of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "reduction 208, E.O.208, E. 100, E. 208, E.O.208, E. 300, E. 100, E.O.208, E. 208, E.O.208, E. 1000, E.O. 301, E., 2010200.

(a) In the case of a taxation disposition under tax-related Acts, it shall undergo an adjudication by the Tax Tribunal, and if it fails to do so, an administrative litigation shall not be instituted, and the administrative litigation shall be instituted within 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the decision of adjudication (see Article 56 of the Framework

However, the re-examination decision, which is conducted in practice as a type of the decision on the objection, takes the form of re-examination of the matters pointed out in the relevant decision on the whole or part of a single taxable unit, to rectify the tax base and tax amount or to maintain the initial disposition according to the result of re-examination. Accordingly, the subject and scope to be dissatisfied with the subsequent disposition can be specified in the next stage litigation procedure only after being notified of the subsequent disposition. Considering the form and purport of the re-examination decision, and the special nature of tax and legal relations with the autonomous administrative control and complicated and professional nature of the administrative appeals system, the re-examination decision is bound to be deemed to have been made as part of the decision on the subsequent disposition in question, by considering the results of re-examination of the relevant disposition agency on the matters pointed out in the relevant decision. Accordingly, the re-examination decision becomes effective as a decision on the objection by supplementing the contents of the subsequent disposition of the disposition by the disposition agency, so that the period of re-examination or the period of filing a lawsuit following the decision can be counted as 2015.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for the instant disposition and the instant disposition of notice of change in income amount, and the tax Tribunal rendered a re-audit on September 30, 201. ② The Defendant made a decision to reduce the corporate tax for the business year 2008 after re-audit of the amount spent outside expenses incurred during the business year 2008 and notified the Plaintiff of the change in income amount of the representative’s disposal amount on November 21, 201. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the period for filing an administrative litigation against the instant disposition and the instant disposition of change in income amount should be calculated from November 21, 201, when the Plaintiff was notified of the subsequent disposition in accordance with the re-audit decision.

C. Therefore, since the period of filing the instant lawsuit filed on February 3, 201, which was 90 days before November 21, 201, which was 90 days before the Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do, was not over, the Defendant’s main defense of safety, which was based on the premise that the period of filing the lawsuit was over, has

3. Related statutes;

4. Determination on the disposition of the corporate tax of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 28 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "OCC borrowed money from a bank as a collateral for expenses for 2008 business year (OOCC - OOCC). However, since the Plaintiff borrowed money from a financial institution as collateral and used it as operating funds in 2008 and paid OCC interest on the borrowed money to the KimCC, it is not "interest on debentures for which the creditor under Article 28 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act is unclear" and thus it should be recognized as losses of the Plaintiff because it is not "interest on debentures for which the creditor under Article 28 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act is unclear." In light of the above facts, it is acknowledged that KimCC borrowed money from the bank as collateral and KimCC borrowed money from time to time under the name of the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff's assertion that the Plaintiff did not have any other evidence that the Plaintiff borrowed money from the bank or borrowed money was insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not have any other reason to use the borrowed money as a whole.

5. Judgment on the notice of change in the income amount of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The Defendant, among the amounts appropriated for processing expenses for the business year 2008, was deemed to have been disposed of as a bonus for the representative, but the Plaintiff did not have disclosed the said money as a bonus for the representative. Since it was appropriated only in the ledger for each account, it shall be deemed to be other outflow from the company. ② The Plaintiff paid the representative borrowed OOO for the business year 2008, at least the amount should be reduced.

B. Determination

According to Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010); Article 106(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22390, Sept. 20, 2010); where a corporation omits taxable income by omitting sales or appropriating expenses, etc., if it is obvious that the amount included in gross income has been leaked to the company, the tax authority shall dispose of the income through bonus, dividends, or other outflow from the company according to the person to whom the income belongs; Provided, That where it is obvious that the amount included in gross income has been disclosed to the company, but it is unclear who is the person to whom the income belongs, the income shall be disposed of by recognizing the representative if the corporation fails to enter the sales in the account book despite the fact of sales or counted the processing expenses in the account book, it shall be deemed that the income of the corporation equivalent to the omitted sales or processing expenses has been leaked, barring any special circumstance.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff did not outflow from the company the amount calculated as processing expenses in the 2008 business year or used it in the repayment of the loan to the representative, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason. The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair by rejecting the part seeking the revocation of the disposition of imposition of the principal tax belonging to the business year 2008, but it is not possible to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal to the court of first instance because it is recognized that the first instance court has tried to the extent that it can render a judgment on the merits. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. The part seeking the revocation of the disposition of imposition of the additional tax belonging to the business year 2008, which is changed in exchange in the first instance court, and seeking the revocation of the disposition of disposition of change of the income amount belonging to the business year 2008, all of these parts are dismissed (the first judgment is withdrawn due to the change of the claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of imposition of the additional tax among the initial dispositions and the lawsuit seeking the revocation of