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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 32,906,289 as of May 16, 2013 and global income tax of KRW 33,46,311 as of July 14, 2013, and the imposition of global income tax of KRW 227,907,282 as of July 14, 2013, shall be revoked.

A. On November 2005, the plaintiff, KimA, KimB (hereinafter referred to as "three persons, including the plaintiff, etc.") entered into a service contract related to the purchase of land in ○○○○-dong 722, ○○○○-dong 722, and its main contents are as follows. However, as between the plaintiff, KimA, and KimB (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff, etc.") around December 2, 2005, with respect to the service contract in this case, the plaintiff entered into an additional service contract (hereinafter referred to as "the additional service contract in this case") with the plaintiff to pay the additional service cost of 50 million won (the advance payment of KRW 200 million and the balance of KRW 300 million) separately, and the plaintiff received the advance payment of KRW 20 million (hereinafter referred to as "the first notice") from the above contract date.

C. Since then, around February 6, 2006, DoD, a major shareholder of CC Construction and CC Industry Development, and an actual operator, established EEK Co., Ltd. (former trade name: “CC Housing Co., Ltd.”; hereinafter “EK”) and took over the status of a client under the instant service contract, and three persons including the Plaintiff agreed to the acceptance of the said contract.

D. On February 15, 2006, EEK opened a deposit account in its name with ○○ Bank, and made the Plaintiff and other three persons including the Plaintiff withdraw and use the money deposited in the said deposit account. The sum of KRW 410 million from January 17, 2006 to April 19, 2007 was deposited in the said deposit account (the specific details are the same as the corresponding statement in the column of column (4) below).

E. Meanwhile, from April 12, 2006 to January 5, 2007, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 1.31 billion from EE case under the pretext of introduction expenses and activity expenses (the specific details are as follows: the same shall apply to the corresponding description in the table of the following g).

F. On February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased land by receiving KRW 100 million from ECEC, but subsequently sold the land purchased after the purchase, and received KRW 100 million from the purchase price (the following classification is applicable to the issue (3).

G. EEK filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the key amount(1) and key amount(2) amount. On July 19, 2012, the court rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to return KRW 50,586,400 out of the key amount(1) and KRW 900 million out of the key amount(2) amount(2). The said judgment became final and conclusive (Seoul High Court).

2011Na0000)

(units: 1,00 won

Classification

Date

Amount

Details

Results of civil judgments

Issues (1)

Amount

December 2, 2005

200,000

Advance Payment for Additional Services

50,586,400 won returned judgment

Sub-committees

200,000

Issues (2)

Amount

April 12, 2006

200,000

(a)The cost of work and activities relating to the land within the F;

1. Judgment of return of 900 million won, out of 1.3 billion won

July 14, 2006

200,000

○○ Electrical Land-Related Work Expenses and Expenses

August 3, 2006

100,000

○○ Land-related working expenses and activities expenses.

d. 8, 2006

10,000

○○ System Business (States) related work expenses and activity expenses.

September 19, 2006

300,000

( state)the cost of work and activities relating to ○○ leather land;

November 30, 2006

100,000

○○○ Capital, State land-related work expenses and activity expenses under the pretext of

January 5, 2007

300,000

○○○ Capital, State land-related work expenses and activity expenses under the pretext of

Sub-committees

1,310,000

Issues (3)

Amount

February 28, 2007

100,000

Land purchase price

Sub-committees

100,000

Issues (4)

Amount

January 17, 2006

100,000 x 1/31)

Office operating expenses, etc.

d. 306

100,000 x 1/3

May 17, 2006

100,000 x 1/3

o October 19, 2006

30,000 x 1/3

December 19, 2006

30,000 x 1/3

February 8, 2007

20,000 x 1/3

April 19, 2007

30,000 x 1/3

Sub-committees

136,666

Total

1,746,66

H. In accordance with the instant service contract and the instant additional service contract, the ○○ Regional Tax Office received KRW 200,000,000 fromCC Construction in 2005, KRW 1,130,000, KRW 1,666,666,000 in total, and KRW 1,746,66,00 in 207, and KRW 1,746,66,00 in total, pursuant to the instant service contract and the instant additional service contract, and notified the Defendant of the said taxation data on February 22, 2012.

I. The Defendant: (a) considered the Plaintiff’s business income and calculated and deducted necessary expenses based on the estimation method (27.6% standard expense rate); (b) notified the Plaintiff of the amount of global income tax of KRW 51,536,150, global income tax of KRW 165,109,070, global income tax of KRW 509,196,480 for the year 2006, and the amount of KRW 725,841,70 for the global income tax of KRW 509,196,480 for the year 2006.

(j) On November 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On May 16, 2013 and July 14, 2013, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s imposition of global income tax of 51,536,150 won for the year 2005, global income tax of 509,196,480 won for the year 2006, and global income tax of 165,109,070 won for the year 207, and the tax base of 725,841,70 won for the global income tax of 165,109,070 won for the year 207, the court decided to return EEK to UN, and the tax base of 950,586,400 won for the year 205,586,400 won for the year 20,600,000 won for the remainder of the tax base of the appeal.

(k) On December 4, 2014, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 32,906,289 of global income tax for the Plaintiff in 2005, global income tax for the year 2006, KRW 227,907,282 of global income tax for the year 2006, and global income tax for the year 2007 (i) and KRW 33,466,311 of global income tax for the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Zu 300 Plaintiffs received the key amount separately from the instant service cost and used it for the prescribed purposes, such as working expenses, activity expenses, office operation expenses, etc., and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the key amount is business income of the Plaintiff, which is subject to global income tax, is unlawful.

2) Even if the issue amount of domestic affairs falls under business income subject to global income tax, the Plaintiff spent most of the above revenue amount as activity expenses and office operation expenses for land purchase. In other words, KRW 200 million, which was paid on April 12, 2006, out of the issues (ii), was paid to Lee○, the representative director of the above company, at the time of purchasing the land owned by Fan Capital Co., Ltd., and the 110 million won, which was paid on September 8, 2006, out of the issues (ii), was the ownership of ○○ System Business Co.,, Ltd., and was used as the site for ○○○○ Capital Co., Ltd. at the time of purchasing the land, which was used as the site for ○○○ Housing Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Plaintiff concluded a transportation service contract with 100 million won, which was paid on November 30, 2006, as entertainment expenses and service expenses (the amount of the above ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd.).

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to whether the issue amount in this case constitutes Plaintiff’s business income

Business income subject to income tax refers to income generated from a business that is a social activity continuously and repeatedly conducted in an independent position under his/her responsibility and calculation for profit-making purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8430, Sept. 9, 2010).

On the other hand, the key issue amount in this case falls under the amount reverted to the plaintiff in relation to the service contract of this case as business income of the plaintiff as income from the plaintiff's business under the Income Tax Act, and this part of the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2) Determination as to whether to deduct necessary expenses from the key amount

A) Article 27(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that "the amount to be included in necessary expenses when calculating the amount of business income shall be the total amount of expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the pertinent taxable period and which is generally accepted as ordinary expenses." Article 35 of the same Act provides that "the amount exceeding a certain amount of entertainment expenses disbursed in relation to the business, or not equipped with evidential data such as credit cards or cash receipts, etc. (Paragraph (1))" (Paragraph (2) shall not be included in the entertainment expenses. Meanwhile, if a taxpayer finds any income omitted in filing a return on the tax base of global income tax, etc., the tax authority may include the omitted income in the total amount of income, and if the taxpayer claims that the necessary expenses were omitted, not only omitted in filing a return on the income to be included in the total amount of income in filing a return on the tax base, etc., but also omitted in filing a return on the necessary expenses, the existence and amount thereof shall be determined by a person who asserts necessary expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10695, Jul.

B) As to the instant case, inasmuch as the Plaintiff asserted to deduct necessary expenses from the instant amount after receiving the instant disposition with regard to the key amount, it is reasonable to view that it is necessary to prove that the Plaintiff could easily present specific data about the existence and amount of the expense. In light of the records of the following circumstances, (1) the Plaintiff did not submit objective evidence, such as financial statements that can recognize that the Plaintiff used the instant key amount as necessary expenses in relation to the instant service contract; (2) the Plaintiff purchased the land within F Co., Ltd. in KRW 1.1 billion and paid KRW 200 million to ○○, a representative director within F Co., Ltd., and paid it as necessary expenses. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s purchase of the land owned by the company and paid it under the pretext of expenses for the Plaintiff’s possession to the representative director separately from the purchase price. However, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s considerable portion of the key amount was paid as entertainment expenses for the implementation of the instant service contract, but it is difficult to find it as necessary expenses for the Plaintiff’s reasonable evidence or evidence.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.