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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of 000 won for the year 2007, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2008, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2008, and global income tax of 000 won for the year 2009 shall be revoked.

가. 원고는 1984. 7. 1.부터 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ로 ㅇㅇㅇ(ㅇㅇ동)(이하 '이 사건 사업장'이라 한다)에서 'ㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇ'라는 상호로 교회 등에서 사용하는 강대상, 장의자 등의 가구 제조업 등을 영위하고 있는 개인사업자이다.

B. As a result of the consolidated investigation of global income tax for the Plaintiff from January 4, 2012 to February 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) omitted the sales of KRW 00 ( KRW 000, KRW 008, KRW 0000, and KRW 2009; hereinafter referred to as “instant sales”); (b) omitted the Plaintiff’s global income tax for the global income from 2007 to 2009; and (c) omitted the Plaintiff’s global income tax for the global income from 2007 to 2009; and (d) omitted the Plaintiff’s global income tax for the global income from 200 years to 200; and (e) confirmed that the Plaintiff’s global income tax for the global income from 200 years to 200 years to 200; and (e) applied the global income tax for the global income from 200 to 200 years to 300 years to 200.

C. From April 2, 2012 to April 20, 2012, the head of Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) performed a comprehensive audit on the Defendant; (b) reported the sales of the instant case by unlawful means; and (c) thus, the Plaintiff deemed that the Defendant erred in applying the general underreporting penalty tax; (c) accordingly, on September 10, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax amounting to KRW 00 for the year 2007, global income tax for the year 2008, global income tax for the year 2008, and global income tax for the year 2009, and KRW 000 for the global income tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal on April 23, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 3, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 9-1 and 9-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) It is true that the Plaintiff omitted the return on the instant sales. However, in light of the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff did not issue the tax invoice for the instant sales was an inevitable result in trade practice; (b) the Plaintiff recorded all details of the instant sales including the instant sales in the daily account book, etc. regardless of whether to issue the tax invoice; and (c) the Plaintiff received all revenues of the instant business establishment including the instant sales through the Plaintiff’s business account; and (b) the Plaintiff’s omission of the return on the instant sales constitutes a mere omission of the return; (c) the omission of the return on the instant sales constitutes a mere omission of the return; and (d) the Plaintiff did not constitute a deceptive scheme or other unlawful act to the extent that it would make it impossible or considerably difficult to collect taxes. However, the instant disposition made on a different premise

(2) In light of the fact that the Seoul Regional Tax Office Review Committee notifies the Plaintiff of the non-approval of the tax offense investigation and that the first Defendant applied the general under-reported penalty tax against the Plaintiff, the instant disposition that applied the unfair under-reported penalty tax according to the audit and cadastral record of the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office is unlawful as it unfairly infringes on the taxpayer’s rights contrary to the

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Defendant conducted an integrated investigation of global income tax for the Plaintiff from January 4, 2012 to February 10, 2012 by means of a tax evasion report, from January 10, 2012, to February 10, 2009. After securing the original market register, daily account statement, and delivery note kept in the instant workplace through deposit investigation, it compared them with the Plaintiff’s reported amount and identified the sales amount of the instant case and necessary expenses.

(2) Although the Plaintiff had kept original account books containing KRW 000 of the sales revenue of this case and KRW 000 of the necessary expenses of this case, such as raw materials and personnel expenses corresponding thereto, which were omitted, within the place of business, but the computerized account books prepared by the Plaintiff’s tax agent and the sales account book were omitted from the sales revenue of this case and the necessary expenses of this case.

(3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff managed all revenues and expenditures of the instant workplace through the Plaintiff’s business account.

(4) On January 3, 2012, the Defendant requested the Seoul regional tax office to deliberate on the extension of the scope of investigation and extension of the investigation period with respect to the Plaintiff. On February 3, 2012, the Seoul regional tax office’s investigation and examination committee approved the Plaintiff’s non-approval of the investigation of tax offense on the ground that: (a) with respect to non-issuance of tax invoices, the act is punished in accordance with the pertinent provision; and (b) with respect to the act of reducing the amount of cash income in accordance with the commercial practices, the act of reporting the reduction of the amount of cash income is difficult to be deemed an active act of concealing income

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 (including the number of pages), each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to the Plaintiff’s first argument

(A) In light of the regulatory system under Article 47-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same), the language and content of Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same), and the legal nature of penalty taxes for underreporting, where Article 47-3(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes excessively conceals or disguises all or part of the fact that serves as the basis for calculating the tax base or the amount of national taxes, it is understood that the imposition and collection of taxes are impossible or considerably difficult, and thus, it is understood that the purpose of Article 27(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to impose more penalty taxes than those for underreporting a return of the tax base, and thus, it is deemed that the purpose of Article 27(3)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act is to stipulate an unlawful underreporting method for tax evasion.

(2) As such, the Plaintiff’s act of intentionally and negligently reporting the sales of the account books, other than those entered in the actual transaction situation, constitutes an act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do283, Sept. 26, 1989; 2002Do2596, Sept. 24, 2002). As such, the Plaintiff’s act of not issuing tax invoices intentionally omitted the sales of the account books at the time of filing the tax return for the following reasons: (a) it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s act of not issuing tax invoices to the other party to the transaction constitutes an act of falsely omitting the tax invoices or making it considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes; and (b) the Plaintiff’s act of not issuing tax invoices at the time of filing the tax return; and (b) the Plaintiff’s act of not issuing tax invoices at the time of filing the tax return by means of a false entry of the account books, such as fraud or other unlawful act.

(2) As to the second argument by the Plaintiff

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority's acts in tax law relations, the tax authority must issue a public opinion list that is the object of trust to the taxpayer, and the taxpayer has no reason for the taxpayer to believe that the tax authority's opinion list is justifiable, and the taxpayer must act in trust and what is, and the tax authority's disposition against the opinion list should bring about a violation of the taxpayer's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du9103, Nov. 26, 2002). As alleged by the plaintiff, the Seoul regional tax office has notified the Seoul regional tax office of non-approval of the tax offense investigation into the plaintiff, and the defendant applied the general under-reported penalty tax against the plaintiff, the reason why the defendant issued a public opinion list that is the object of trust to the plaintiff, or that the plaintiff has no reason for the plaintiff to believe that the name of the defendant's opinion is justifiable (in this case, the plaintiff's act in this part is not reasonable).

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

판사ㅇㅇㅇ

판사ㅇㅇㅇ

(1) The former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010)

(1) Where a taxpayer (excluding a person exempted from liability for tax payment under Article 29 of the Value-Added Tax Act) fails to file a tax base return under the tax-related Acts within the statutory due date of return, the amount of tax calculated under the tax-related Acts (including corporate tax on capital gains from land, etc. under Article 5-2 of the Corporate Tax Act in cases of corporate tax, and the amount to be added under Article 27 or 57 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act in cases of inheritance tax and gift tax, respectively, and referring to the amount of tax paid under Article 17 or 26 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act in cases of value-added tax; hereafter in this Section, the same shall apply) shall be added to or to be refunded from the amount of tax payable (hereafter in this paragraph, the amount of general non-reported penalty tax shall be referred to as the "amount of tax payable"): Provided, That when a person subject to double-entry bookkeeping prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter in this Section, referred to as the "person obliged to double-entry bookkeeping") or corporation fails to file a tax base return or tax base.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), where there is a tax base (referring to the amount of tax payable provided for in Articles 17 and 26 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act in cases of value-added tax; hereafter the same shall apply in this Section) without filing a return (referring to the amount of tax payable provided for in Articles 17 and 26 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act in cases of value-added tax; hereafter the same shall apply in this Section) by improper means (referring to the methods prescribed by Presidential Decree that a taxpayer violates the duty to report the tax base or the amount of national

1. The amount of additional tax on a non-reported tax base in an unjust manner: An amount equivalent to 40/100 of an amount calculated by multiplying the ratio of an amount equivalent to the non-reported tax base in an unjust manner (hereafter in this paragraph, referred to as "non-reported tax base") to the tax base by the calculated tax amount (hereafter in this paragraph, referred to as "additional tax on non-reported return"): Provided, That where a person subject to double-entry bookkeeping or a corporation fails to file a tax base return of income tax or corporate tax, the amount shall be the larger of an amount calculated by multiplying the amount of penalty tax on non-reported return by 14/10,000 of the amount of income related to the non-reported tax base

(1) Where a taxpayer (excluding those exempted from liability for tax payment pursuant to Article 29 of the Value-Added Tax Act) files a tax base return under the tax-related Acts within the statutory due date of return and the reported tax base falls short of the tax base to be reported under the tax-related Acts, an amount equivalent to 10/100 of the amount calculated by multiplying the ratio of the amount equivalent to the underreported tax base to the tax base to the tax base by the calculated tax amount (hereafter referred to as "generally underreported penalty tax" in this paragraph) shall either be added to the payable tax or refunded tax amount: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as correction by

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), where a tax base for underreporting exists by unjust means, the sum of the following amounts shall be added to the payable tax amount or deducted from the refundable tax amount:

1. The amount of additional tax on a underreported tax base by unlawful means: An amount equivalent to 40/100 of an amount calculated by multiplying the ratio of an amount equivalent to an underreported tax base by unlawful means (hereafter in this paragraph, referred to as "unfairly underreported tax base") to the tax base by the calculated tax amount (hereafter in this paragraph, referred to as "additional tax for unlawful underreporting"): Provided, That where the income tax base or corporate tax base reported by a person subject to double-entry bookkeeping or a corporation falls short of the tax base for income tax or corporate tax that should be reported under the tax-related Acts, it shall be the larger of an amount calculated by multiplying the amount of penalty tax for unlawful underreporting and the amount of revenue related to the underreported tax base (hereafter in this

(4) Matters necessary for imposing penalty taxes for underreporting, such as calculation of illegally underreported income amount, shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(1) The former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010)

(1) The term "person subject to double-entry bookkeeping prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the proviso to Article 47-2 (1) of the Act means a resident who has any real estate rental income or business income, and is subject to double-entry bookkeeping pursuant to Article 160 (3) of the Income Tax Act.

(2) The term "manner prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the main body of Article 47-2 (2) of the Act means any of the following manners:

1. Making a false entry in books, such as double entry;

2. Preparation of false evidence or false documents (hereafter in this Article, referred to as false evidence or other evidence);

3. Receipt of false evidence (limited to receipt knowing that it is false).

4. 장부와 기록의 파‚W

5. Concealment of property, or fabrication or concealment of income, earnings, acts or transactions;

6. Any other fraudulent act to evade, receive a refund or deduction of national taxes.