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

Cheong-gu Office

Each value-added tax imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

A. The delegation contract of this case

1) From September 7, 2006 to May 28, 2007, the Central and Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted a special tax audit on KimB and CCC Industrial Co., Ltd. for which it serves as the representative director; and (b) sent gift tax assessment data to the director of Seomancheon Tax Office.

2) On June 20, 2007, the head of Western District Tax Office imposed gift tax on KimB on ① OOO in relation to the bypass donation, ② on November 15, 2007, the imposition of gift tax by OOOO in relation to the dividend of the above company (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "the imposition of gift tax in this case", and when some of them are referred to, the imposition of gift tax by Nos. 1 and 2 gift tax is referred to as "the imposition of gift tax by the sequence).

3) From January 1, 200, the Plaintiff (a certified tax accountant who operated AAA Tax Accounting Office in OOdong, OO, OO, O, and OB) was delegated with the duty of objection to the disposition of gift tax in this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant delegation contract”) through ED, KimB’s agent Do, Kim E-B (E) on December 10, 207, and drafted a contract as follows (hereinafter referred to as “Delegation contract”).

Agency Contract for Appeal

Delegator (A): KimB

Trustee (B) : AD

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Agreement is to delegate the power of Gap to Eul to act as an agent for all activities related to the performance of duties of Gap with respect to the objection, request for examination, request for adjudication, and request for examination by the Board of Audit and Inspection (hereinafter referred to as "request for appeal").

(2) Summary of the case

- Taxpayer: KimB

-Items: Gift tax

- The agency: the head of Seocheon Tax Office

- Notice Tax Amount: Case 1 'OOO', Case 2 'OOO',

- The notice date: June 20, 2007; November 15, 2007

Article 5 (Remuneration)

B The fees for the services it has accepted shall be refunded (including interest on refund) or cancelled by appeal as referred to in Article 1, 1 of the reduced amount of tax (charges) and 20%, and 10% of the reduced amount of tax (charges) by appeal as referred to in Article 1.

Article 6 (Payment of Remuneration)

(1) Beginning money: A shall pay a sum of KRW 200 million to B with the retainer money simultaneously with this contract. This retainers shall not be refunded even if they have lost a claim for appeal.

(2) Any balance: A shall be paid within seven days from the date on which the amount calculated by subtracting the retainers already paid from the amount of remuneration under Article 5 is determined when the winning of a request for appeal becomes final and conclusive: Provided, That an intermediate payment may be paid by mutual agreement between A and B.

Article 8 (Responsibility for Elimination of Drugs)

(2) When cancellation is made after the commencement of preparation work for appeal due to the circumstances of Party A, the amount already paid shall not be demanded to be returned, and Party A shall pay half of the amount of remuneration provided for in Article 5 on the premise that Party A won the whole amount.

(3) When cancelling a contract due to the circumstances of Eul, Eul shall immediately refund the amount of remuneration received previously.

4) After the delegation contract of this case, the Tax Tribunal received a written appeal from KimB with respect to the pertinent disposition in the column for objection on the pertinent date indicated below, and the Tax Tribunal decided that the amount of money recorded in the column for refund in the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case should be refunded on the pertinent date indicated in the column for decision (hereinafter in this case, each of the above appeals and decisions shall be referred to as "(1) and 2 tax appeal and decision) in accordance with the sequence set forth below.

No.

Date of Request

Object of appeal

Date of decision

Refund Amount

1

December 11, 2007

1Gift Tax Imposition

September 29, 2008

OOOOO members

2

January 30, 2008

2Gift Tax Imposition

March 31, 2009

OOOOO members

5) Of the letter of delegation form for the second tax appeal, the letter "GGB" was printed in the letter of delegation form, and in the letter of proxy, "G" was printed in the letter of delegation, and the name of each person was stamped on the right side.

6) On the other hand, KimB paid to the Plaintiff each of the retainers (hereinafter referred to as "the retainers of this case") under Article 6 (1) of the Agreement through KimE on the date of the formation of the delegation contract, on November 7, 2008, OOs (hereinafter referred to as "the first gold"), and on July 31, 2009, OOs (hereinafter referred to as "the second gold") directly paid to the Plaintiff, respectively (hereinafter referred to as "the sum of each of the above amounts").

B. Each disposition of this case

1) From March 8, 2011, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office (hereinafter "the investigation of this case") conducted an investigation as to whether the Plaintiff and OF received KRW 1 and 2 from KimB about good offices of public officials belonging to the Tax Tribunal in relation to the first and second tax appeal cases (hereinafter "the investigation of this case"). However, on February 8, 2013, the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office decided not to prosecute the above suspicion of good offices.

2) After that, the Seoul Regional Tax Office submitted a letter of confirmation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant letter”) from the OF in the course of investigating the tax accounting corporation GG on April 2013, 2013, and around that time, secured the delegation contract and the instant investigative data.

Written Confirmation

1. Personal information;

(a) Corporate name: Tax Group GG;

(c) Representative: OF; and

2. Details of confirmation;

The above facts were accepted by this AA certified tax accountant in relation to the 2nd appeal against KimB, and this AA certified tax accountant received the down payment OOO on December 10, 2007, the down payment OOOOO on November 7, 2008, the part payments OOOOOOOO on July 31, 2009, and the total OOOOOOOOOO(Attachment of the contract) from this case, and in relation to this case he confirmed that this case he received the fees from the certified tax accountant and reported the taxes as follows:

- - The following:

(Supply, Cost, etc.)

Date

Amount (won)

Details

Jinay

December 2, 2007

OOO

AA Receipt of down payment by check from a certified tax accountant

Omission of Report

July 31, 2009

OOO

Receiving fees from an account by Kim II (Personnel of the Lao Tax Office) after receipt of the cashier's checks

Report Completion

July 31, 2009

OOO

Payment of fees by cash cashier's account

Report Completion

July 31, 2009

OOO

Withdrawal after Receipt of the check

Revised Declaration

guidance.

OOO

April 2013

The above-mentioned person

Head of Seoul Regional Tax Office Ha

3) The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office deemed that the Plaintiff received each of the instant money from KimB for the provision of services under the delegation contract of this case in light of the above confirmation document, the contents of the delegation contract, and the investigation data of this case, and notified the Defendant of the data for taxation on April 18, 2013.

4) Pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010), the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 208 of the value-added tax for the second term of December 1, 2003, and KRW OOOO of the value-added tax for the first term of October 1, 2003 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”), respectively, in relation to KRW 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act for the first term of October 1, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”), and in accordance with the sequence 1 and 2, for some of them.

5) The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 7, 2014, but was dismissed on April 15, 2014.

6) Meanwhile, the Defendant: (a) determined that the exclusion period for imposition of value-added tax on the retainers of this case was too high; (b) on May 14, 2013, the assessment data of global income tax was notified to the head of the Nowon District Tax Office; (c) however, on May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the resident registration place from the apartment located in the OOO-gu to the office of OO-gu office at OO-si; (d) on May 20, 2013, the head of the Yeongdeungpo District Tax Office imposed global income tax on the retainers of this case; and (c) as regards the said disposition, the revocation lawsuit is pending under this Court 2014Guhap10875.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 through 7, 9 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

B. Determination as to the assertion that the instant disposition violates the underlying taxation principle

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Defendant: (a) deemed that there was sales equivalent to KRW 1,20,000 to the Plaintiff solely on the basis of the instant confirmation document prepared by the Fund in the course of tax investigation.

2) Determination

In principle, when the tax authority intends to correct the tax base or tax amount of value-added tax due to any error or omission in the details of its return, it shall be subject to a field investigation while conducting the field investigation. However, on-site investigation is not prepared against the free will of the parties or related persons, and it is recognized that there is an error or omission by other data, such as a confirmation document other than the account book, and that it is possible to conduct a field investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du81, May 12, 2005; 2005Du12589, Feb. 24, 2006; 2005Du12589, Feb. 24, 206; 2005Du125896, Feb. 16, 207; 2007Du1637, Feb. 16, 207).

With respect to the instant case, the Defendant issued the instant disposition based on not only the instant confirmation but also the delegation contract and the instant investigation data, etc. The delegation contract is not drafted in the course of the investigation or investigation, but also the Plaintiff recognizes the authenticity of the delegation contract, and there are no circumstances to deem the said confirmation to have been made contrary to the intention of the EF. In light of the facts recognized earlier and the circumstances acknowledged in sub-paragraph (d) below, it is determined that all taxation data of the Defendant based on the instant disposition are reasonable and correct.

Therefore, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to have violated the principle of base taxation.

C. Determination on the assertion that the first disposition is against the principle of trust protection

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Even though the defendant declared that the taxable period of the value-added tax of the gold source 1 was set to the plaintiff as the first period in 2008, the taxable period was set to the second period in 2008.

2) Determination

In order to apply the principle of trust protection to the acts of a tax authority in a tax law relationship, the tax authority should name a public opinion list that is the subject of trust to taxpayers, and the taxpayer should not be responsible for the taxpayer's reliance on the reliance of the tax authority's reliance on the reliance of the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the tax authority, and the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the

In addition, the principle of trust protection or the principle of respect for tax practices stipulated in Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes applies only to cases where there are special circumstances that are deemed to conform to the concept of justice to protect the trust of the other tax payer even if they sacrifice the principle of legality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du1253, Oct. 25, 2002; 2002Du12144, Feb. 13, 2004).

As to the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 13, No. 14-1, and No. 14-2, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a notice of taxation notice stating that the Defendant imposed tax on the Plaintiff by means of data for omission in sales of OOO Won on June 3, 2013, and a notice of tax notice stating that the amount of value-added tax for the first period of July 1, 2008 was corrected and notified as KRW 63,294,890 for the first period of July 1, 2013, and all the above documents reached the Plaintiff around that time. According to the above facts of recognition, it may be viewed that the Defendant expressed to the Plaintiff that the taxable period of value-added tax related to No. 1 won was fixed as No. 2008.

However, according to the evidence Eul evidence Nos. 8, 9, and 10, the plaintiff stated that the time when the plaintiff received the KRW 1 as of March 23, 2012 at the time of the investigation of this case shall be November 7, 2008. However, the vindication submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant on May 24, 2013 shall be stated as of April 2008. According to the above facts, if the time when the plaintiff received the KRW 1 as stated in the above supporting statement, if the time when the plaintiff received the KRW 1 as of April 2008, the defendant appears to have served the notice of the above taxation and the notice of tax payment on the plaintiff on the determination that the expiration date of the period for exclusion of value-added tax under Article 26-2 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes expires, considering these circumstances, even if the plaintiff believed that the above taxable period will be set as the KRW 1008.

In addition, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff trusted the above statement of opinion and committed any act accordingly, and even if the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s interest by setting the taxable period as the second period in 2008, unlike the above statement of opinion, considering the circumstances leading up to the above disposition, it is difficult to view that there is a special circumstance to protect the Plaintiff’s trust even when sacrificing the principle of legality in this case.

C) Sub-decision

Therefore, it cannot be said that the first disposition violated the principle of trust protection.

D. Determination as to the assertion that the second disposition is against the substance over form principle

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff and KimB agreed on the part regarding the imposition of gift tax by the second gift tax immediately after the conclusion of the instant delegation contract, and thereafter, the OF entrusted the aforementioned disposition by KimB to process the administrative affairs, and only the Plaintiff delivered KRW 2 to the OF.

Therefore, since the subject of actual attribution of the above money is not the plaintiff but the OF, the second disposition is in violation of the substance over form principle.

2) Determination

A) In principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the existence of a taxation requirement and the tax base. However, if the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process are revealed, unless the other party proves the circumstances that the pertinent facts in question cannot be eligible for the application of the empirical rule, the pertinent taxation disposition cannot be readily concluded to be an unlawful disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du13831, May 29, 2008).

나) 살피건대, 앞서 든 증거에 의하면, 오FF이 제2조세심판청구 업무에 일부 관여하고, 원고로부터 이 사건 확인서에 기재된 금원을 지급받은 사실은 인정할 수 있으나, 앞서 인정한 사실 및 갑 제12호증, 을 제5, 6, 11 내지 13호증의 각 기재, 을 제10호증의 일부 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 �� 내지 ��과 같은 점에 비추어 보면, 원고가 이 사건 위임계약에 따른 사무 처리 과정에서 김BB과의 의사연락 없이 독자적인 판단 하에 제2조세심판청구 업무 일부를 오FF에게 재위임하고 오FF으로 하여금 그 업무를 처리하도록 한 뒤 김BB로부터 제1, 2금원을 수임인으로서 지급받고, 그 중 일부를 재위임인 자격에서 재수임인인 오FF에게 지급한 것으로 봄이 타당하고, 원고 주장과 같이 위 위임계약 중 제2증여세 부과처분에 관한 부분이 합의해지 된 후 김BB과 원고가 그 부분에 관하여 새로이 위임계약을 체결하였다고 보기는 어렵다.

�� 오FF, 김BB, 이DD의 진술이 모두 제2금원의 실질적인 귀속 주체가 원고라는 점에 부합한다.

① In the instant confirmation document, the FF is insufficient for the person to whom the second tax appeal was delegated to him.

② During the investigation of the instant case, KimB and LeeD stated to the effect that, as a witness, they are the Plaintiff, who is in charge of filing a tax appeal, and OF was paid KRW 1 to the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s request, “The Plaintiff was expected to receive the refund decision in the case of the second tax appeal claim in return for the payment of KRW 1,00,000, and KRW 2,000 was the contingent remuneration for the Plaintiff (DD).

�� 이 사건 위임계약 중 제2증여세 부과처분 부분이 합의해제되고, 오FF과 김BB 사이에 새로 계약이 체결되었다는 원고의 주장은 이를 믿기 어렵다.

1. Article 8(1) and (2) of the delegation contract provides that the parties shall compensate the other party for certain damages when the parties cancel the contract due to their causes attributable to them. It is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff and KimB agreed to cancel the contract without any dispute over the location, etc. of causes attributable to them.

② Although an agreement on restitution is not necessarily required at the time of termination of the contract, it is an example of empirical rule to cancel the contract without any agreement on the return, etc. of the amount already paid in the event of termination of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da17093, Sept. 13, 1994; 2006Da2490, Nov. 29, 2007; 2006Da2490, 2506, Nov. 29, 2007). Such legal principles are the same as in a delegation contract. If the Plaintiff and KimB agreed on the imposition of gift tax 2 after the conclusion of the delegation contract of this case, it is natural that the Plaintiff made a clear agreement in any form as to the return of the starting amount received on the premise that the Plaintiff is in charge of the affairs regarding the imposition of gift tax of this case. The Plaintiff did not explain the fact that such agreement was made and the details thereof.

③ Although the Plaintiff asserts that a delegation contract was concluded orally between KimB and the OF with respect to the affairs of protesting against the imposition of gift tax by the second gift tax, in light of the fact that the above amount of tax imposed exceeds the OOO won, and the OF appears to have been in writing upon the general delegation contract while performing its duties as a certified tax accountant, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to believe with the same.

④ In light of the fact that: (a) the Fund, on July 10, 2009, entered into a claim for remuneration with an amount equivalent to 10% of the refund amount determined in the second appeal case; (b) inasmuch as the Fund was delegated by KimB to the Plaintiff, the Fund did not have any reason to include the Plaintiff as an addressee in the said claim for remuneration; (c) the KimB paid KRW 2 to the Plaintiff, not the Fund, even after the Fund was drawn up the said claim for remuneration; and (d) even if the re-delegation is performed regardless of the intention of the initial delegating, there is a case where the re-agent claims remuneration against all the initial delegating and sub-agent in order to receive the payment from the re-agent; and (e) in light of the fact that KimB entered the said claim for remuneration prepared by the Fund as an addressee, it cannot be readily concluded that the delegation contract was concluded between KimB and OF solely on the basis that KimB was written as an addressee.

�� 원고의 주장은 원고가 이 사건 처분 이전에 수사 및 세무조사 단계에서 한 소명내용과도 모순된다.

① At the time of the instant investigation, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff himself/herself, and stated that, even in the vindication submitted to the Defendant prior to the instant disposition, the Defendant directly paid the Defendant money at OF’s request. However, if there was a delegation contract between OF and OFB as the Plaintiff’s argument, the Plaintiff, not OFB, should not request OF to take charge of the said duties, and OF would only receive the payment from OFB, and there is no reason to demand the Plaintiff to pay the said money.

② The above explanation states that the reasons for submitting the second request for a trial in the name of the Fund would be agreed upon by agreement between the Plaintiff and the OF. In other words, KimB appears to have not participated in the submission of the above OF request for a trial.

C) Thus, since the subject of actual attribution of the second gold source is the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the second disposition violated the principle of substantial taxation.

3. Conclusion

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