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

Cheong-gu Office

On October 1, 2014, the Defendant imposed corporate tax of 00,00,000, corporate tax of 2011, corporate tax of 0,000,000,000,000 corporate tax for the business year 2012, 0,000,000,000 value-added tax for the first period of 209,00,000,000 value-added tax for the second period of 209, 00,000, 000, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 201, 200, 201, 200, 200.

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiff is a legal entity that operates painting construction business with the representative of KimCC.

B. Circumstances concerning the purchase of the instant case

Upon filing a corporate tax return and value-added tax return for the business year or taxable period from 2009 to 2012, the Plaintiff included the amount indicated in the item column of supply value in the following [Attachment 1] from the purchaser column (hereinafter “the purchaser of this case”) in the deductible expenses according to the purchase tax invoice received as the supply value, and deducted the input tax amount from the output tax amount (hereinafter “the purchase of this case”).

On the other hand, if an amount equivalent to the purchase cost of this case (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) deposits from the Plaintiff’s account to the purchase account of this case, the remaining amount after deducting the value-added tax was deposited from the purchase account of this case to the account in the name of KimD, which is the borrowed name account of KimCC (hereinafter “GlaCC account”).

C. Circumstances concerning the instant business

Upon filing a corporate tax return for the business year from 2009 to 2011, the Plaintiff included the amount set forth in the following [Attachment 2] in deductible expenses in the nominal cost of business fees paid to KimE, KimF, and SungG (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business”).

On the other hand, when the amount equivalent to the operating expenses of the instant case deposits from the Plaintiff’s account to the KimE, KimF, and SungGG account, the remainder after deducting some of the amounts from the whole or part of the amount was deposited into the KimE, KimF, and SungG account again from the KimE, KimF, to the KimCC name account.

(d) Correction notice of the corporate tax, rectification notice of value-added tax, and notification of changes in income amount;

From July 2, 2014 to September 5, 2014, the commissioner of HH Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant of taxation data to the effect that the Plaintiff leaked the purchase cost and operating expenses of the instant case (hereinafter collectively referred to as “purchase cost, etc.”) without real transaction as the result of conducting a corporate tax integration investigation against the Plaintiff. Based on the notification of taxation data, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction notice of corporate tax, the correction notice of value-added tax, and the change in income amount as described in the purport of the claim against the Plaintiff on October 1, 2014. Based on the notification of taxation data, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction notice of corporate tax, the correction notice of value-added tax, and the notification of change in income amount as described in the list 3 below (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”), the specific details are as described in the following [3]. The portion of the corporate tax, the portion of the value-added tax,

(e) passing through appeal procedures

On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on June 25, 2015. However, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the appeal on March 23, 2016.

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The assertion that part of the purchase cost, etc. of this case constitutes real transactions

1) As to the purchase cost of this case, the purchase price of KRW 00,000,000,000, out of the purchase price of KRW 000,000,000, which is the purchasing party of the TT construction, and the purchase price of KRW 00,000,00,00, which is the purchasing party of the JJJ, constitutes a real transaction, and each of the dispositions of this case premised on this part is unlawful.

2) As to the instant operating expenses, inasmuch as the fees of KRW 00,000,00 are paid to KimE and SungG in return for the actual operation, the notice of the imposition of corporate tax and the change in the amount of income premised on this part is unlawful.

B. The assertion that 000,000,000 won out of the purchase cost, etc. of the instant case should be disposed of as internal reserve

00,000,000 won out of a reasonable amount such as the purchase cost of this case, which was returned to KimCC's account, was used for the plaintiff's business purpose, so it should be disposed of as "in-house reserve" in consideration of the purport of Article 106 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

C. The part of the purchase cost of the instant case constitutes other outflow from the company

The amount of value-added tax equivalent to the purchase cost of this case shall be the value-added tax reported and paid by the purchaser of this case, and it shall belong to the purchaser of this case, so it shall be disposed of as "other outflow from the company" in accordance with the main sentence of Article 106 (1) 1 (c) of

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

4. Determination on the legality of the disposition

A. Determination as to the assertion on real transactions

1) Determination on the assertion on the purchase cost of the instant case (as seen earlier 2. A. 1)

Unless special circumstances exist, such as that if a tax authority received a written confirmation from a taxpayer that a certain part of a transaction is a processing transaction during the course of a tax investigation, it is difficult for the tax authority to readily deny the evidence of such written confirmation only by means of evidence of the fact-finding, such as where the written confirmation was forced against the intent of the originator, or it is difficult to consider it as evidence of the specific fact due to insufficient details (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6,

b)each entry and pleading of the evidence of sub-paragraphs B(2) through (4) in the circumstances of the dispositions recognized in the preceding 1.

In addition to the circumstances known by the Plaintiff in addition to the overall purport of the Act, i.e., the Plaintiff’s deposit of an amount equivalent to the purchase cost to HH Construction and the JJJ, and most of them were deposited into the KimCC’s account on the same day, and KimCC’s examination was made based on the fact that the purchase transaction with HH Construction and the JJ was the largest transaction with the Plaintiff during the process of corporate tax integration investigation into the Plaintiff, and the examination was made (Evidence No. 3), the Plaintiff’s statement, the actual representative of HH Construction, corresponds to the Plaintiff’s statement (Evidence No. 4), and the Plaintiff’s submission of specific items, unit price, etc. of the purchase transaction alleged by the Plaintiff until the date of the closing of argument in this case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s purchase transaction with H Construction and the LJJJJ and the KJJ on the premise that the above purchase transaction was a processing transaction is lawful.

2) Determination as to the argument on the instant operating expenses (as to the argument on February 2, 200)

In full view of the circumstances revealed in the circumstances acknowledged in the preceding 1.C., namely, the Plaintiff’s deposit of an amount equivalent to the operating expenses with KimE and SungGG in the same manner or within a short period of time, the Plaintiff is unable to either disclose the business performance of KimE, SungGG, standards for calculation of fees, etc. under the business contract asserted by the Plaintiff up to the date of the closing of argument in this case, or to submit the data specifically revealing such details; KimE is either the accumulated in KimCC or the mother of KimD, the nominal owner of KimD, the KimCC account; the Plaintiff is also the same person in the same manner as KimCC, and includes them in the deductible expenses. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s sales contract with KimE and SungGG, or the fees incurred therefrom, and (b) the Plaintiff’s submission of evidence Nos. 4-1, 2-2, 15-1, 2-2, 1-2, 1-2, and 6-1, 7-2, and 7-1-2.

The notice of the imposition of corporate tax and the change in the amount of income on the premise that the above business contract is a processing transaction is legitimate.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of internal reservation (as stated in the foregoing 2.B.)

1) Article 106(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the disposal of income in cases where the amount included in gross income pursuant to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act has not been leaked to the company outside of the company shall be an internal reserve. Article 106(4) of the same Act provides that the disposal of income in cases where a corporation collects the amount illegally flown out of the company, such as omitting sales, processing expenses, etc. within

However, in cases where a corporation appropriates the processing costs in its account book, barring any special circumstance, the corporation’s profit equivalent to the processing costs should be deemed to have been leaked to the private company. In such cases, the special circumstance that the total amount of the processing costs is not leaked to the private company should be proved by the corporation asserting it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du16347, Dec. 24, 1999). Furthermore, the act of using the corporation’s funds by the representative director, who is the actual manager, etc., is not premised on the early recovery, and thus, constitutes the outflow from the company as an expenditure itself, barring special circumstance that cannot be deemed as not premised on the recovery from the utilization time. As such, the special circumstance that cannot be seen as not premised on the recovery, such as the actual status and the degree of control over the corporation within the corporation, such as the representative director, who is the principal agent of the embezzlement, and the circumstances leading to embezzlement, and whether the representative director, etc., in fact cannot be deemed identical with the company’s economic interest, should be verified individually and specifically (see, 20007.

2) The fact that an amount equivalent to the purchase cost of this case, etc., was deposited in the name account in the name of KimCC in most of the above amounts into the purchase office, KimE, KimF, KimF, SungG account, and KRW 0,000,000,000, out of the above amount, the above KRW 000,000,000, out of the above 0,000,000, in each order, into the name of KimCC account can be recognized by the parties concerned or by the statement in subparagraph 2, and even though the purchase cost of this case, etc., constitutes the processing cost, it can be recognized by the statement in subparagraph 2, and even though the Plaintiff included it in the corporate tax return and included in the deductible expenses, the purchase cost of this case, etc., in whole, should be deemed to have been discharged from the company, unless there are special circumstances.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that KRW 000,000 was used for the plaintiff's business purpose or that the plaintiff reported to include it in gross income due to tax adjustment after recovering it within the time limit for filing a revised return. Rather, the circumstances that can be known by the overall purport of entry and pleadings in the evidence No. 2, namely, KimCC deposited part of the amount corresponding to the purchase cost, etc. of this case into the plaintiff in the account book, and counted it as a half of the purchase cost of this case into the account book. In light of the size of the plaintiff's sales, it seems that KimCC controlled the plaintiff as one company, such as managing a considerable amount of funds in light of the size of the plaintiff's sales, etc., by using the KimCC account for the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is difficult to view the plaintiff as a premise for its recovery from the time when the purchase

3) Notice of change in the amount of income that disposed of as the outflow from the company of this case is lawful. Won

The above assertion is without merit.

C. Determination of other out-of-the-counter claims (as stated in the preceding 2.C.)

1) As long as the revenue of a corporation that was released from the company without being entered in the account book is not clear, the tax authority is bound to dispose of it as a bonus for the representative pursuant to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. In such a case, the burden of proving that the ownership is clear is the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du20805, Mar. 28, 2013).

2) In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to see that part of the value-added tax amount out of the purchase cost of this case was attributed to the purchaser of this case solely on the ground that the Plaintiff asserted, and it is also difficult to see that it constitutes the interest constituting the income of the person to whom the income belongs as stipulated in the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, on the premise that it is unclear that it is not certain to whom it belongs, the notice of change

3. Conclusion

The claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.