Whether the construction cost has been processed, and whether the expenses have been reduced by the agreement on consignment sales have been omitted;

It is legitimate that the court was acquitted on the grounds that there is no evidence of the facts charged that the court has spent processing, and there is no ground for taxation on other processing expenditure of the construction cost, and that when the trustee pays to the truster after membership consignment sale, the balance remaining after the deduction of the expenses under the agreement shall be omitted

Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act rejection of Wrongful Calculation

Article 32 of the former Corporate Tax Act and its rectification

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The Defendant’s revocation of the part exceeding KRW 4,581,430 of the imposition disposition of KRW 235,90,060 of the corporate tax for the year 197, as of September 14, 1999 against the Plaintiff, and the part exceeding KRW 21,328,90 of the imposition disposition of KRW 1,375,412,060 of the earned income tax for October 16, 199 shall be revoked.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 95% is borne by the Defendant, and 5% is borne by the Plaintiff, respectively.

1. The plaintiff's purport and purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. (1) The part of the disposition of imposing corporate tax of 235,990,060 won for the year 197 against the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 10 won for the defendant), the part of the disposition of reducing 69,102,720 won from the amount of the value-added tax for the first period of 1997, exceeding 2,000 won, among the disposition of reducing 20,718,990 won from the amount of the value-added tax for the second period of 197, exceeding 1,333,800 won from the disposition of reducing 20,718,90 won from the amount of the value-added tax for the second period of 197, and (2) the part of the disposition of imposing corporate tax of 1,375,412,060 won for the year 16, 199.

2. The defendant's purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

1. Details of taxation; and

가. 원고는 1989. 9. 11. 골프장업 등을 영위할 목적을 ○○○을 대표이사로 하여 '주식회사 ㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇ'이라는 상호로 설립된 후(위 상호는 1995. 6. 8. '주식회사 ㅇㅇㅇ ㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇ'으로 변경되었다가, 다시 2003. 9. 3. 현재의 상호로 변경되었다), 1994. 10. 21. ○○○과 ○○○이 공동대표이사로 선임되었다. 그 후 1996. 3. 13. 법인등기부상 ○○○이 대표이사에서 해임되고 ○○○, ○○○이 대표이사에 취임한 것으로 등재되자, ○○○이 청주지방법원 충주지원에 자신을 대표이사에서 해임하고 ○○○, ○○○을 대표이사로 선임한 주주총회결의의 부존재확인의 소를 제기함에 따라 1997. 7. 11. ○○○, ○○○의 대표이사 직무집행이 정지됨과 아울러 ○○○이 대표이사 직무대행자로 선임되었으며, 그 후 1999. 12. 10. 대법원에서 ○○○의 승소판결이 확정되었다. 그런데 원고의 임시주주총회 및 이사회는 2000. 3. 3. ○○○을 다시 해임하고 직무집행 정지된 이후에도 원고의 대표이사로서 사실상 권한이 있는 것처럼 행세한 ○○○을 대표이사로 취임시키자, ○○○이 위 충주지원에 위 2000. 3. 3.자 주주총회결의의 부존재확인의 소를 제기함과 아울러 ○○○에 대한 대표이사 직무집행정지 가처분신청을 하여, 2000. 5. 26. ○○○의 대표이사 직무집행이 정지되었다. 그 후 ○○○과 ○○○은 2000. 9. 23. 합의 하에 공동으로 대표이사에 취임하였다가 다시 ○○○이 해임되는 등 거듭되는 분쟁의 소송 끝에 2004. 7. 21. 다시 공동대표이사로 취임하기에 이르렀다.

B. The Plaintiff was subject to tax investigation by the Seoul Regional Tax Office around June 199, 199. The Plaintiff’s result was (1) from January 1996 to December 197, 197, appropriated the total construction cost of 17,198,30,300 won in the account book to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 606.

C. Accordingly, with respect to the portion reverted to the business year 197 as a result of the above investigation, the Defendant: (a) reduced the amount of KRW 9,869,629,841 which was excessively appropriated in the above business year from the construction account to deductible expenses; and (b) again, considered the amount of the above overpaid amount as the amount actually received by the construction company out of the above overpaid amount as the amount of the above overpaid amount of KRW 3,07,665,040 (the above amount of KRW 2,963,963,175,040 + the above amount of KRW 114,490,000 as the construction cost settlement difference as the bonus for the ○○○○○○○○○○○ which was the representative director after the inclusion in the gross income; (c) deemed the remaining amount of KRW 6,791,964,801 as the retained earnings after the inclusion in the gross income; and (d) deemed the amount of the above overpaid amount as the sales amount of KRW 313635,1385,2315,2015.

(A) The disposition imposing corporate tax in this case on September 14, 1999, deducting KRW 1,219,260 already paid from KRW 237,209,320, which was calculated by adding the Plaintiff’s tax base rate of KRW 691,981,481,481 as corporate tax for the corporate tax for the year 197, and adding the additional tax of KRW 55,454,506.

(B) On the ground of the above three grounds, 514,636,364 won corresponding to the first period portion among the amount in this case, among the amount in this case, was added to the output tax amount, and 2,000,000 won, which was already treated as a bad debt repayment amount, was not deducted from the input tax amount, and the additional tax was added to the amount, and 69,102,720 won, which is the difference, was reduced from the refundable tax amount. 148,09,90,909 won corresponding to the second period portion among the amount in this case, was added to the output tax amount, and 1,33,800 won was not deducted from the input tax amount, and 2,000,000 won which was already treated as a bad debt repayment amount, the additional tax was added to the amount in this case, and 69,102,720 won which is the difference among the amount in this case, 148,1986,797.7

(C) The above ① (i) as earned income tax on ○○ on the ground of the reasons set forth in ② (i) the bonus disposal amount of KRW 3,099,298,870 (i.e., the processed expenditure amount of KRW 3,077,665,040 + the above 21,63,830,00 which is the recognized interest + the above 21,633,830 won) was added to the earned income amount in 1997 of ○○○, and (ii) separately calculated by adding KRW 50,845,480, which was disposed of as 196 as ○○’s earned income amount in 1996 to the earned income amount in ○○○○, and then adding the additional tax to the additional tax.

D. Accordingly, on October 30, 1999, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the above taxation disposition, but dismissed on November 24, 200, and again, on February 22, 2001, the National Tax Tribunal filed a request for a trial with the National Tax Tribunal.

[Evidence] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 18-2, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 4-2, 3, Eul evidence No. 6 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the taxation disposition is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of imposing corporate tax in this case, the disposition of reducing the amount of value-added tax, and the disposition of imposing wage and salary income tax are unlawful for the following reasons. As such, the disposition of taxation in this case, excluding the portion equivalent to the amount of income disposal in 1996 for ○○ who did not have any dispute, among the bad debt tax and the amount of wage and salary tax

First, in around 197, the Plaintiff did not pay the construction cost to ○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○, a golf course construction business entity around 1997, even though there was no amount of processed expenditure, the Plaintiff’s bonus disposition on the ○○○○, which was deemed to have been otherwise made, was erroneous.

Second, it was true that the Plaintiff paid ○○○, the representative director, a private loan construction fund. However, ○○ also caused KRW 1,045,595,543,072 due to the drop number of provisional loan receipts against the Plaintiff during the same period, so the recognized interest rate is not the one to be recognized as inclusion in the calculation of the income, even though there is no one to offset the interest amount to be paid in the calculation of the income, it was erroneous in the disposition of bonus to the ○○○○, which

Third, the instant money is the money agreed upon between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ by means of offering funds for travel intermediation and arrangement expenses for members recruited by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and it is merely a lump sum deposit to the Plaintiff due to the aggravation of the Plaintiff’s financial standing, which is not the Plaintiff’s sales but the said money, and it

B. Determination

(1) Whether processing expenditure exists

(A) In determining the amount of income of a false corporation, the burden of proof as to whether or not there was profits to be included in gross income or the amount of such profits is, in principle, the tax authority, and in general, it is based on the account books or evidence in correcting the amount of a taxpayer’s return due to an error or omission.

(B) Therefore, we examine whether Plaintiff 1 spent processed expenses of KRW 3,077,665,040 in the business year of 197.

First of all, I examine the part concerning ○○○○ in 2,963,175,040 won.

○○○○○○○○○○○○ 1-6, 19, 27, 54, and 12-7, 11-1 of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 4-7, 12, 16, and 11-1 of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 4-700, 700,000 won, which was charged with the Defendant on April 1, 1996 to December 31, 1997. The amount of the contract was KRW 19 billion by combining value-added tax, KRW 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and KRW 1970,000,000,000,000,000 won, and KRW 196,000,000,000,000,000 won, were also 196,000 won.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 4-8, Gap evidence No. 18-1, 2, and 3, the above ○○○○ is hard to find that the above ○○○○ was not a 5,112,09,00 won after June 18, 1996, and the defendant's certificate No. 2 prepared on April 21, 199 (the above evidence No. 4-3) and prepared on April 21, 199, it is hard to find that the above ○○○○○○○ was not a 1,00 won, and it is hard to find that the above ○○○○○○○ was not a 60-1,00 won, and it is hard to find that there was no evidence to prove that the above ○○○○○○○ was a 1,000 won or more, and that there was no other evidence to prove that the above ○○○○○ was not a 1,000 won.

(C) Next, we examine the parts concerning ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

On April 21, 1999, Gap evidence Nos. 7-1, Eul evidence Nos. 11-3, and 4 were followed. On April 21, 1999, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the representative director of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, made and issued a written confirmation of "the purport that the amount of the tax invoice issued and the settlement amount is KRW 5,678,000,000, excluding the additional tax, is KRW 629,904,00,000, among which the amount of the tax invoice issued and the settlement amount is KRW 629,90,00. The plaintiff around March 8, 199, may recognize the fact that the Defendant was spent in excess of KRW 1,251,693,78 as the construction price for the ○○○○○○○○○○○."

However, according to the evidence No. 6-1, No. 7-2, No. 11-6 of the above ○○○○○○○○○○’s contract amount of KRW 5,678,00,00 (excluding value-added tax) around June 199, and the amount of 4,019,074,822 (excluding value-added tax) for which cash settlement was 574,00,000, and bill resolution was 503,224,000 won, and 1,07,24,000 won was 57,24,000 won, and it was difficult to acknowledge that the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s contract amount was 1,672,639,364 won, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the above amount was 90,900 won, 197,090 won.

(C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s first assertion that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 3,077,665,040 in relation to the construction cost in the business year 197 is with merit.

(2) Whether there was a drop number of the provisional payments to offset the drop number

In light of whether the Plaintiff’s provisional payment was made in KRW 1,045,595,543,072 against the Plaintiff in 1997, whether or not the Plaintiff’s provisional payment was made in the year of 1997, whether or not the Plaintiff’s provisional payment was made in KRW 1,045,595,543,072, the entry of KRW 9 appears to have been made together at the time of the initial corporate tax return, and there is a difference between the Gap evidence No. 8 (which is deemed to have been made together at the time of the initial corporate tax return, and the date is written at KRW 1999, and all the preparation forms are written at KRW 199 (printed on April 1, 199, hereinafter referred to as “approval of Amendment”). No. 13-1 through 27, No. 15-14, and No. 16-1 through 12-4, each column is insufficient to recognize any entry.

Therefore, the second argument of the plaintiff that there is no drop number of provisional payment to be counted as the recognition interest, is without merit.

(3) Whether the instant money constitutes an omission in sales

In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence No. 1-2, Gap evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 14, and Eul evidence No. 14 on May 12, 1997, the plaintiff sold ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ issued by the plaintiff by changing the name of 329 out of 745 of the fifth golf course membership tickets issued by the plaintiff, but it is intended to cover KRW 90,000 out of 9,90,000 per membership sales proceeds for sales promotion, and to cover 15% of sales proceeds for sales promotion, and bear acquisition tax required for changing the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but not paid 000,000 won.

According to the above facts, ○○○○○○ sales of Plaintiff’s membership as the commission agent, and the sales proceeds accrue to the Plaintiff as the truster, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the money received from the consignment sales and other fruits received from the consignment sales to the Plaintiff. However, ○○○○○○○’s payment only to the Plaintiff after deducting the above travel intermediary expenses from the sales proceeds of membership tickets constitutes an agreement on the method of payment of expenses or remuneration. Thus, the instant amount is merely an agreement on the method of payment of the consignment sales and the Plaintiff’s profit or sales (However, the instant amount is an incidental expense to be borne by the Plaintiff pursuant to the above agreement with ○○○○○○○○○ in relation to the sales of membership tickets and is subject to inclusion in deductible expenses, and the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the Plaintiff’s imposition of corporate tax and value-added tax on the instant amount. Accordingly, as examined below, it should be included in deductible expenses as follows).

Therefore, the plaintiff's third assertion that the funds of this case shall not be included in the tax base of corporate tax and value added tax is not justified.

(4) Justifiable tax amount

The legality of the disposition in the revocation lawsuit shall be determined depending on whether it exceeds the legitimate tax amount, and the reasonable tax amount of the corporate tax, the value-added tax, and the earned income tax in this case shall be calculated as follows.

(A) First, we examine the corporate tax of this case.

First, it is based on the evidence Nos. 1-2 and 6, and the defendant calculated the corporate tax base of this case by including the excess appropriation of KRW 9,869,629,841 related to the construction cost of golf courses in deductible expenses and adding it to gross income. As such, inasmuch as the defendant added the whole amount appropriated to deductible expenses and added the same amount again to gross income, the non-approval of the processing expenditure for the construction cost of golf courses may affect the tax base of the corporate tax of this case against ○○○, even if the non-approval of the processing expenditure for the construction cost of golf courses may affect the tax base of the corporate tax of this case (in addition, the excess appropriation of which was reserved without being disposed of to ○○○, does not affect the excessive standard).

In addition, since Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of December 28, 1998), Article 47 (1) of its Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15797 of May 16, 1998), and Article 20 (3) of its Enforcement Rule (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 675 of December 31, 1997), the Plaintiff’s tax base of KRW 60,70,00,000 for private loan 26,70,000,000, KRW 150,000 on March 22, 1997, KRW 200,000 on June 16, 1997) + KRW 97,000 on June 19, 200, KRW 97,000 on May 16, 197.

Therefore, the above recognized interest shall be included in the calculation of the income, as mentioned above, and the amount shall be included in the calculation of the corporate tax in the calculation of the legitimate tax amount of the corporate tax of this case.

(C) Finally, there is no difference between the parties in the facts that the amount reported by the Plaintiff as ○○ in 1996 on the instant wage and salary income tax was 21,80,000 won and the amount reported as 3,360,000 won and the amount reported as ○○○ in 1997 on the said portion’s wage and salary income amount was 32,40,000 won and 5,480,000 won, and the amount paid as 5,480,000 won for the said portion’s wage and salary amount was paid as 3,07,665,000 won. Thus, if the Defendant erroneously recognized as the processed expenditure and recognized as the bonus disposal as 22,387,560 won and added 22,387,560 won, the amount of withholding tax on the said provisional wage and salary income amount to be additionally imposed on the Plaintiff is 21,328,903 won, such as the attached Form 2’s.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of this part of the disposition imposing KRW 4,581,430, which exceeds KRW 235,990,060 of the corporate tax of this case, is unlawful. Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the disposition seeking revocation of the refund of the value-added tax of this case should be accepted, and the part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the disposition for reduction of the refund of the value-added tax of this case should be dismissed, without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance partially