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

A. On May 6, 2003, the Plaintiff transferred ○○○○○○○-dong 223-397 site and 2,919 square meters of building 1,845 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real property”) to Nonparty A in the transfer value of KRW 2.4 billion. In filing a report on the corporate tax reverted to year 2003, the Plaintiff omitted a report of KRW 1.39 billion of the transfer value by underreporting the transfer value of the instant real property as KRW 1.3 billion of the transfer value.

B. However, on September 30, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a revised return on the corporate tax base and tax amount from May 4, 2003 to 2006 with the Defendant, claiming that the Plaintiff recovered the above KRW 1 billion from the former BB on May 9, 2007 and then disposed of it as an internal reserve.

C. The defendant, with prior knowledge that the plaintiff was corrected, deemed that the amount of the outflow from the company was included in the calculation of earnings and retained earnings, denied the disposition of income in the calculation of earnings and retained earnings in 2003, and disposed of the amount of KRW 1 billion in the calculation of earnings and retained earnings in 2004, -69,022,812 won in 204, -9.09 million in the calculation of the bonus of each representative in 2005 and -9.9 million in the calculation of the amount of income in 206 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") on May 6, 2008.

D. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on July 28, 2008, but July 2009.

27. An appeal was dismissed, and again filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 23, 2009, but April 2010

29. was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 7-1 to 4, and 12

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In accordance with Article 106(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, it is unlawful for the Plaintiff to take the disposition of this case by deeming that the said money was out of the company even though the Plaintiff collected 1 billion won underreported within the deadline for filing a revised return, and disposed of the said money as an internal reserve, and then filed a revised return of corporate tax.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) If a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite a fact of sales, the total omitted sales amount shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the company, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the special circumstance that the omission amount in sales was not leaked out of the company shall be proved by the corporation asserting it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du3726, Jan. 11, 2002). In addition, Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8831, Dec. 31, 2007) and Article 106(1)1 proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619, Feb. 22, 2008) provide that when determining or revising the corporate tax base, it shall be deemed that it was leaked out of the amount included in gross income, but it shall be deemed that the amount, the ownership of which is unclear.

According to the above evidence, it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not enter 1 billion won of the transfer value of the real estate of this case in the account book and omitted it at the time of the return of the pro rata corporate tax for the year 2003. As to whether there are special circumstances to deem that the said money was not leaked, it is difficult to believe that part of the entry of No. 14 and No. 4 in light of the entry of No. 21, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, it is legitimate that the defendant released from the company to the above 1 billion won of the omission report, but it is not clear that it was reverted to the plaintiff's representative, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

(2) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the amount should be disposed of as an internal reserve pursuant to the main sentence of Article 106(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, since the Plaintiff collected KRW 1 billion out of the company from the formerB from the representative member's oldB and filed a revised return to gross income.

First, as to whether the Plaintiff recovered KRW 1 billion from the formerB, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the pleadings, as to whether the Plaintiff recovered KRW 1 billion from the formerB, the evidence Nos. 5, 6, 15 through 19, and 23 (including various numbers), the evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6-1, 6-2, and the testimony of the witness rightCC and KimD are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff recovered the above amount from the formerB, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

① On May 4, 2007, deposited KRW 950 million into the Plaintiff’s bank account is not the principal member B but the non-party AA Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party A”). In addition, on May 9, 2007, the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff was recovered on May 9, 2007, only the pre-statement of the Plaintiff’s preparation and there are no objective financial data corresponding thereto.

② The Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff recovered KRW 100 million was treated as “the provisional receipts” in both the Plaintiff’s (substitute) table. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the provisional receipts were collected from the Nonparty Company of the formerB. However, even based on Nonparty Company’s business partner’s (name of the trading partner: the formerB, the account name: the formerB, the current account name: the principal, trust, the closing loan, and the B’s certificate 16), the circumstances in which the provisional receipts of Nonparty Company decreased as much as the above amount was given on the same date.

③ On the other hand, in the Plaintiff’s substitute, entry, and withdrawal slip (the president of the provisional deposit account), there is room to regard the amount (including the part of KRW 60 million) deposited by the representative in order to purchase the shares of the non-party company as follows as the deposit money omitted from the disposal profit of the real estate of this case (the recovery of the outflow from the company in 2003) as the correction of only a summary.

④ The Plaintiff asserted that part of the above amount (765,625,000 won) recovered from the formerB was spent for the acquisition fund by purchasing 61,250 shares of the non-party company from the non-party EE around May 8, 2007. However, since the end of 2006 to the end of 2009, the Plaintiff’s explanation on the disposal of the recovered amount is not persuasive.

Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff recovered KRW 1,00,000 from the former BB on May 4, 2007 and the 9th of the same month, the proviso of Article 106(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the disposal of income in the case of unfairly withdrawing from the company with prior knowledge that the amount would have been corrected and inclusion in the gross income in the tax adjustment shall not be deemed as retained earnings. However, considering the overall purport of pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 11, and 12, the head of the tax office having become aware of the fact that the transfer tax base of the instant real estate was 2.4 billion won or less in the process of verifying the acquisition price of the said real estate by the Plaintiff on April 27, 2007, the head of the tax office having become aware of the fact that the transfer tax base and the transfer price of the instant real estate was 0 billion won or less in the process of confirming the transfer price of the said real estate by the Plaintiff.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case 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.