(영문) 수원지방법원 2014. 06. 12. 선고 2012구합1465 판결

1. The Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax of KRW 2,225,805,753 on July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 against the Plaintiff on April 14, 2010 and imposition of KRW 1,164,030.094 on corporate tax is confirmed to be null and void.

2. The business year from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 that the Defendant reported to the Plaintiff on December 10, 2008

The imposition of corporate tax of KRW 21,117,525, the imposition of corporate tax of KRW 956,470,513, the imposition of corporate tax of KRW 956,470,513, the imposition of KRW 82,62,765, the imposition of KRW 82,765, and the imposition of KRW 43,367,490, respectively, for the second period from July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005.

3. The plaintiff's remaining main claims and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, 60% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

1. The primary purport of the claim

A. As to the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 2,225,805,753 as of July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 and corporate tax of KRW 1,164,030,094, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on April 14, 2010, it is confirmed that the above disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 2,225,805,753 as of June 30, 2005 exists or each of the above dispositions of imposition are

B. In the same judgment as stated in paragraph (2) of this Article and the defendant's disposition of imposition of KRW 2,167,271,715 of the principal tax on July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004, the amount exceeding KRW 650,327,417 of the principal tax on corporate tax accrued for the business year from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004, and the imposition of KRW 538,015 of the principal tax on corporate tax accrued for the business year from July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005, the imposition of KRW 2,012,053,390 of the principal tax on corporate tax accrued for the business year from July 1, 2004, and the imposition of KRW 137,785,945, and the imposition of KRW 920,000 of the principal tax on year 1,2005.

"The amount of each tax imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on November 3, 2010 and July 16, 2013 among the claims for the preliminary claim of attached Table 1 1. "The amount of each tax imposed on the Plaintiff" shall be revoked in entirety exceeding the amount of the tax stated in the column of the "reasonable amount of tax for each plaintiff per year" among the amount of each tax imposed on the Plaintiff at each time."

2. On the date of each disposition stated in the "Date of Disposition" column of 2. Preliminary Claim No. 1, the part of each disposition that exceeds the amount of tax stated in the "Amount of tax imposed" column of each disposition shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a corporation that is charged with the manufacture of single heat and the construction and lease of real estate in Do-Eup, ○○-si. The plaintiff reported and paid the corporate tax belonging to each business year from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2008 as stated in the separate report column of "specific reasons for imposition". (b) The director of the tax office ofCC has conducted a regular investigation of corporate tax on the plaintiff from October 6, 2008 to November 5, 2008, and notified the defendant of the taxation data. Accordingly, the defendant is the defendant on December 10, 2008.

Corporate tax for the business year from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "204 business year");

"2004. 7. 1.부터 2005. 6. 30.까지 사업연도(이하2005 사업연도'라 한다)의 법인세와 2007. 7. 1.부터 2008. 6. 30.까지 사업연도(이하2008 사업연도'라 한다)의 법인세 및 농어촌특별세를 별지 2구체적인 부과처분 경위' 중 '증액경정(2008. 12. 10.)1란 각 기 재와 같이 증액경정・고지하고, 2003년 제1기부터 2008년 제2기까지 부가가치세 383,172,140원을 경정・고지하였다. 그후 피고는 직권으로 2009. 5. 10. 2004, 2005 및 2008 사업연도의 각 법인세를 별지 2 '구체적인 부과처분 경위' 중 '감액경정(2009.", "5. 10.)'란 각 기 재와 같이 감액경 정・고지하고, 2009. 9. 30. 2005 및 2008 사업 연도 의 각 법인세를 별지 2구체적인 부과처분 경위1、중 감액경정(2009. 9. 30.)'란 각 기",재와 같이 감액 경정・고지 하였다.

"다. 한편，원고는 2009. 3. 13. 이에 불복하여 CC지방국세청장에게 이의신청을 하였 고, CC지방국세청장은 이에 대하여 '2009. 10. 16. 원고의 2004 사업연도 중 차입현황 을 조사하여 세법상 건설자금이자를 산정하고，원고가 2001. 6. 7. 취득한 ○○ 군 ■■읍 ◇◇리 산21 임야 33,313 및 2003. 7. 14. 취득한 경기도 ○○시 □□읍 ◇◇ 리 산 43-3 임야 3,739nf에 대하여 업무와 관련 없는 자산으로 보는 기간을 유예기간 2년을 제외한 기간으로 하여 2003. 7. 1.부터 2008. 6. 30.까지의 각 시업연도 법인세 과 세표준과 세액을 결정하고，나・머지 청구는 기각한다.'는 취지의 결정을 하였다. 피고는 2010. 1. 8. 위 이의신청 결정에 따라 2004 및 2005 시・업연도의 각 법인세를 별지 2구체적인 부 과처분 경위' 중감액경정(2010. 1. 8.)'란 각 기재와 같이 감액경정・고지하였다.", "라. 한편，CC지방국세청장은 원고의 건설자금이자 산정에 대하여 재조사한 결과를 피고에게 통보하였고, 피고는 2010. 4. 14. 2005 및 2008 사업연도의 각 법인세를 별지 2 '구체적인 부과처분 경위' 중 1증액경정(2010. 4. 14.)'란 각 기재와 같이 증액경정 한 후 다시 2010. 4. 19. 과세전적부심사결정을 반영하여감액경정(2010. 4. 19.)'란 기 재와 같이 감액경정하였다(위 2010. 4. 14.자 증액경정 납세고지서의 송달 여부에 대하 여 당사자 사이 에 다툼이 있는 바, 이에 대하여는 후술하기로 한다).", "마. 원고는 2010. 1. 20. 이에 불복하여 조세심판원에 심판청구를 하였고, 피고는 2010. 11. 3. 원고의 심판청구를 일부 받아들여 2008 사업연도의 법인세 및 농어촌특 별세를 별지 2구체적인 부과처분 경위' 중감액경정(2010. 11. 3.)'란 각 기재와 같이 감액경정고지하였으며, 조세심판원은 2011. 11. 3. 원고의 심판청구를 전부 기각하는 결정을 하였다.", "바. 원고는 2012. 2. 6. 이 사건 소를 제기하였는데, 피고는 이 시건 소송 계속 중 원고가 2010. 4. 19.자 증액경정결정의 송달여부에 대하여 다투자 2013. 7. 16. 부과제척 기간이 아직 경과하지 아니한 2008 사업연도의 법인세에 대하여 라.항 기재 2010. 4. 19.자 증액경정결정을 직권으로 취소하고, 같은 날 별지 2 '구체적인 부과처분 경위' 중 1증액경정(2013. 7. 16.)'란 각 기재와 같이 증액경정・고기하였다.",[인정근게 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 저U호증의 1 내지 5, 갑 제2호증의 1, 2, 갑 저|9호증， 을 제1 내지 28, 41 내지 48호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지

2. The issues of the instant case and the classification of relevant tax amounts

A. The issues of the instant case

The issues of this case, which were arranged on the basis of the illegality of the plaintiff's initial disposition and the corrective disposition of increase or decrease, are as follows (hereinafter referred to as "in dispute" by the sequences), and issues are as follows.

Plaintiff’s assertion

Defendant’s argument

Jinay

Judgment

Defendant

staff members shall 0.4.9

IO on April 14, 2010 to the plaintiff

Defendant

office : Neither company nor company

in 205 corporate tax for the business year

M. M. S. Den. Den. Den. Den.

A notice of increase and correction was given.

1. To pay taxes;

However, the plaintiff is asserting the above tax payment.

The copy of the decision on the amount and N.S.

Main Affairs

Note 20,000

receipt of a written statement; or

b) the delivery and delivery of a paper;

Claimant

cite

Ro, the above corporate tax and additional tax

Won: The due date for this action shall be applicable.

increased corporate tax SH

Manobals shall be null and void if there is no non-existence thereof.

Eardi. The plaintiff's assertion Montreal

is the same.

Reasons

shall not be effective.

3. Determination as to the key issue 1 (Determination as to whether a tax notice for correction of increase issued on April 14, 2010 was served or not, and as to the primary claimant)

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant asserted that on April 14, 2010, the defendant paid to the plaintiff KRW 2,225,805,753 from KRW 2,167,272,715 to KRW 2,225,753 from KRW 2,205 to KRW 1,117,39,200 to KRW 1,164,030,094 from KRW 1,164,00 to KRW 200 to KRW 1,164,030,094, but the plaintiff did not receive the notice of the above tax payment, so the above disposition of imposing corporate tax and additional tax are nonexistent or null and void.

2) The defendant's assertion

After the resolution of increase in the number of members of the Plaintiff’s office as of April 10, 2010 and the reduction in the number of members on April 19, 2010, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s office to request a letter of increase in the number of members of the Plaintiff’s office, and the Plaintiff’s office demanded a letter of increase in the number of members of the Defendant’s office. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since the Plaintiff issued a copy of each resolution of increase in the number of members of the Plaintiff’s office on April 14, 2010 and each written notification of reduction in the number of members on April 19, 2010 (hereinafter “instant tax payment notice, etc.”) to the employee of the Plaintiff who visited the Defendant office. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the increased number of members of the Plaintiff’s office on May 13, 2010 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s assertion”).

1) On April 14, 2010, the Director of theCC director notified the Defendant of the results of re-audit on the calculation of the Plaintiff’s construction fund interest, and the Defendant, on April 14, 2010, notified the Defendant of the results of re-audit on the calculation of the Plaintiff’s construction fund interest, and the Defendant, on April 14, 2010, adopted a resolution for reduction or correction, reflecting the decision of reduction or correction on April 19, 2010, as described in the separate sheet No. 1023, respectively. 205 and 2008.

B) On May 13, 2010, the payment deadline for the instant tax payment notice, etc., the Plaintiff paid KRW 76,067,160 for increased portion. On the other hand, the Defendant did not enter the fact that he/she did not affix his/her signature and seal or sign and seal on a written delivery for tax payment upon correction of increased portion on April 14, 2010.

[Judgment on the facts that there is no dispute over recognition, and the entries in No. 38-1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1) Documents provided for in tax-related Acts are served on the domicile, residence, place of business or office of the person in whose name the documents are to be served (Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and the service of the documents is to be carried out by mail or electronic delivery (Article 10(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). On the other hand, documents by delivery shall be served on the public officials of the administrative agency concerned at the place where the documents are to be served at the place where the documents are to be served: Provided, That if the person to be served refuses to be served, documents by delivery may be served at another place (Article 10(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). When documents are served, the recipient shall sign or affix a seal on the delivery document, but if the recipient refuses to sign or affix a seal, such fact

The service of documents under tax law is an act that has a significant impact on the formation of a tax claim obligation relationship between the state and the taxpayer, and in particular, the service of tax payment notice becomes the starting point of the collection procedure and becomes the starting point, and the tax claim obligation relationship between the state and the taxpayer is not only developed mainly, but also becomes the basis for the objection period of the taxpayer. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the provisions on the service method under Article 10(6) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, considering the importance of the service, such as the notice of tax payment, is mandatory in preparation for the cases where there is a dispute between the parties on whether the service was lawfully made, and that there was no legitimate service if the requirements under the above provision are not satisfied (see, e.g., Seoul High Court Decision 201Nu2134,

2) It is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant issued the instant tax payment notice to the Plaintiff employee solely on the basis of the descriptions of the health stand, and evidence Nos. 40-1 and 2 as to the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

설령 피고의 주장과 같이 이 사건 납세고지서 등이 교부에 의한 송달이 되었다고 하더라도 이 사건 납세고지서 등에 대한 송달서에 수령인의 서명날인이 있거나 서명날인 을 거부한 사실이 부기되어 있지도 않은바，이에 따라 이 사건 2010. 4. 14.자 증액경 정 처분에 관한 납세고지서 의 송달은 위 규정 에 위배하는 부적법 한 것으로서 송달의 효 력이 발생하지 아니하였다고 할 것이다. 따라서 피고의 원고에 대한 2010. 4. 14.자 증 액경정처분은 무효라고 할 것이므로€다만, 원고에게 적법하게 고지된 2008. 12. 10.자 2005 사업연도 귀속 법인세 2,167,272,715원의 부과처분은 그 후에 이루어진 무효인 위 과세처분에 흡수 소멸되지 아니하고 독립하여 존속하고 있다고 할 것이다(대법원 1995. 8. 22. 선고 95누3909 판결 등 참조)

4. Judgment on the key issues 2 (whether construction funds are included in deductible expenses)

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant, regardless of whether the Plaintiff’s loan from the National Housing Fund was required for construction funds, did not include the entire amount of the interest in its deductible expenses and imposed corporate tax. Thus, the portion of the disposition of this case is illegal. Meanwhile, from July 1, 2005 to June 31, 2006, corporate tax of KRW 558,339,096 and corporate tax of KRW 198,001,370 from July 1, 2006 to July 31, 2007 (hereinafter “2007”) should be included in the corporate tax for the business year from July 1, 2006 to July 31, 2007, as the amount equivalent to the amount of the corporate tax of KRW 802,508,548,260,308,370 should be included in the deductible expenses for each business year, the amount of the corporate tax of KRW 208 should be increased.

2) The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff borrowed a loan from the national housing fund to a rental housing construction fund. Article 63(1) of the Housing Act provides that the National Housing Fund shall not operate a double, except for the purposes of the construction of national housing and the housing site preparation project for the construction of the national housing. Therefore, the loan borrowed from the national housing fund shall be used only for the construction of the national housing, and the loan borrowed from the national housing fund shall be deemed used for the construction fund, barring special circumstances.

3. Date of commencement, in case of other fixed assets for business.

1) The National Housing Fund is a fund used to support the construction of national housing, such as rental housing, for the stabilization of housing for the homeless people, and its purpose of use is strictly limited to the capacity of the construction of national housing. The lending limit is calculated by multiplying the amount of support for each apartment complex, complex, or area to be constructed in the future by the debtor, by the number of households to be constructed. A portion of the loan is pre-paid after commencement of construction, payment is made after the commencement of construction, payment is made thereafter, and payment is made in installments in the form of payment of completion money after completion of construction.

"2) Upon reporting the corporate tax for the business year of 2004 to 2008, the Plaintiff, a corporation that runs a leasing business with the funds borrowed from the National Housing Fund, appropriated loans borrowed from the National Housing Fund (hereinafter referred to as "the loans in this case") from the National Housing Fund as follows, as the construction funds of the rental apartment that the Plaintiff was under construction, as the amount of the construction funds of the rental apartment, and excluded them from deductible expenses."

204

205

206

2007

208

Interest on construction capital

415,969,620 won

574.86.390 Won

58,339,096 Won

198,001,370 won

197,536.870 won

[Judgment of the court below] The above facts have no dispute over recognition, the evidence as above, Gap's H evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the body prior to the pleadings.

1) According to Article 28(1)3 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7838, Dec. 31, 2005); Article 52(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22577, Dec. 30, 2010); and Article 52(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22577, Dec. 30, 201), interest paid on loans required for the purchase, production, or construction of fixed assets for business, or other similar expenses shall not be included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount of a domestic corporation for each business year

On the other hand, in order for the tax authority to exclude the interest on the loan from deductible expenses on the ground that the interest on the loan falls under the interest paid on the construction fund used for the construction of fixed assets, unlike the initial return by the taxpayer, the tax authority should prove that the loan in question was used for the construction of fixed assets. However, since the taxpayer's exclusion of part of the expenses to be included in deductible expenses from deductible expenses, regardless of the absence of reasonable grounds, it is an exceptional case in light of the empirical rule that the taxpayer's excessive tax base and tax amount should be included in deductible expenses on the ground that the interest on the loan in question is unrelated to the construction fund or it is unclear whether it was used for the construction fund, unlike the initial return by the taxpayer, if the taxpayer asserts that it should be included in deductible expenses on the ground that the interest on the loan in question was used for a purpose unrelated to the construction fund of fixed assets (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du21877, Aug. 19, 2010).

2) 살피건대, 원고는 당초 국민주택기금으로부터 차입한 이 사건 대출금을 건설자 금이자로 보아 손금에 불산입하는 것으로 신고하였다가 다시 이 사건 대출금은 원고의 고정자산인 임대아파트 건설에 소요되었는지 여부가 불분명한 차입금에 해당하여 손금에 불산입하여야 한다고 주장하나, 이를 인정할 아무런 증거가 없다、 오히려 앞서 본 인정사실을 통하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, CD 원고는 사업용고정자산에 해 당하는 임대아파트 건설을 주된 업무로 하는 점, 然 국민주택기금 대출금은 그 용도가 엄격히 제한되어 있을 뿐만 아니라 대출한도의 설정방법, 대출금의 지급방식 등에 비 추어 볼 때 그 대출금의 대부분이 본래의 용도인 임대아파트 건설에 사용되었을 것으 로 보이는 점, 貧 원고는 이 사건 대출금 중 어느 부분이 건설에 직접 사용되지 않았는지 또는 일시적으로 운영자금으로 전용하였는지 등에 대한 일체의 증거를 제출하지 아니한 점 등을 종합하여 보면，결국 원고가 국민주택기금으로부터 차용한 이 사건 대 출금을 원고의 고정자산인 임대아파트의 건설자금이자로 보아 각 사업연도의 손금에 산입하지 않은 것은 적법하다고 봄이 상당하므로, 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

5. Judgment on the 3 issues (the time to which donations accrue)

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Since "the plaintiff killed a dormitory and contributed it in kind to AAAA Institute, the time when the contribution is reverted to the school juristic person is usable in the building, that is, the 2006 business year which belongs to February 28, 2006, for which approval for temporary use was obtained: Provided, That since the income of the plaintiff is zero, the above contribution should be included in the business year of 2008 pursuant to Article 24 (3) of the Corporate Tax Act, as the income of the plaintiff is zero, the above contribution should be included in the business year of 2008."

In light of the fact that cash payments are made when cash payments are made in accordance with the Corporate Tax Act, the owner of a dormitory also adopted the principle of cash payments for the expense, and that the owner of a dormitory also includes the Plaintiff’s construction cost extension expenses for the business year 2004 and 2005 that actually paid cash as a donation in deductible expenses, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff donated “one cash, not in kind, in kind, as a donation.” Therefore, the instant disposition that was included in deductible expenses in the business year 2004 and 2005 that is the date of each of the Plaintiff’s cash payment is legitimate.

"1) 학교법 인 AA학원(이 하 'AA학원'이 라 한다)은 2001. 1. 27. ○○도 □□군 △△ 산 57외 33필지 지상 철골조 및 조적조 및 절근콘크리트조 드러스 및 박공지붕 10층 기숙사건물(이하이 사건 기숙사'라 한다)에 관하여 소유권보존등기를 미쳤다.", "2) 원고는 2004.경 AA건설 주식회사(이하AA건설'이라 한다)에게 이 사건 기숙 사 증축공사를 도급금액 25억 원으로 정하여 도급을 주는 계약을 체결하였다.",3) AA학원은 2006. 2. 28. ■■군수로부터 이 사건 건물 증축공사에 대하여 임시 사용승인을 받았다.

4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid AA Construction amounting to KRW 1,363,63,636,364 on June 17, 2004, and KRW 909,09,09 on May 25, 2005, and filed a corporate tax by appropriating it as a donation in the business year (2004 through 2005) to which the payment date belongs, and filed a corporate tax return. AAA driving school also delivered to the Plaintiff each donation receipt of KRW 1,363,636,364 on June 17, 2004, and KRW 909,090,90,909 on May 25, 2005, in relation to the extension of the accommodation of the instant case.)

[In the absence of a dispute with recognition, the evidence mentioned above, the statements mentioned in Eul 30 to 37 (including paper numbers), and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

1) According to Article 24(2)4(a) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7908 of Mar. 24, 2006), in the case of statutory donations such as donations made to private schools under the Private School Act for facility expenses, etc., such statutory donations shall be included in deductible expenses; however, in case where the sum of the statutory donations exceeds the amount computed by multiplying 50/100 by the amount obtained by subtracting losses from the income amount in the pertinent business year, the excess amount is in calculating the income amount in the pertinent business year, and it shall not be included in deductible expenses.

2) In light of the following circumstances revealed through the facts acknowledged as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was a donation of cash equivalent to the construction cost, not to make the building extended to the AAAD as a "spot", and therefore, it is lawful for the Defendant to regard the portion as a donation in the business year 2004 and 2005, which is the date of the Plaintiff’s respective cash payment, and included in the deductible expenses. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(가) 건물이 증축된 경우에 증축 부분이 기존건물에 부합된 것으로 볼 것인가 아닌가 하는 점은 증축 부분이 기존건물에 부착된 물리적 구조뿐만 아니라, 그 용도와 기능의 면에서 기존건물과 독립한 경제적 효용을 가지고 거래상 별개의 소유권 객체가 될 수 있는지의 여부 및 증축하여 이를 소유하는 자의 의사 등을 종합하여 판단하는데 (대법원 2002. 10. 25. 선고 2000다63110 판결 등 참조), 이 사건 기숙사 위 기존 건물 과 증축된 건물의 용노와 기능 그리고 위 증축된 부분 역시 기존 건물의 소유자인 세 경학원에게 귀속시키려는 당사자들의 의사 능을 종합하여 보면, 위 증축 부분은 기존 의 기숙사건물에 부합된 것으로 봄이 상당하다、따라서 위 증축 부분은 AA학원의 소유라고 볼 것이고, 달리 원고의 소유라고 보기 어렵다

(B) When the Plaintiff reported the corporate tax to the Defendant, the Plaintiff reported the construction cost to AA Construction.

In 204 and 2005, each contract price was regarded as a contribution in 2004 and 2005, and the AAB also issued to the Plaintiff a contribution receipt to the same effect in the same business year.

6. Determination on the key issue 4 (whether to deduct the input tax amount)

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff donated the building for dormitory use to AAAAAAA, and the input tax amount of the tax invoice related to the extension of the building should be deducted from the output tax amount of the value-added tax, but the imposition of the value-added tax for the first quarter of 204, 448, 710 and the imposition of the value-added tax for the first quarter of 2005 and the first quarter of 135,367,490 are unlawful.

2) The defendant's assertion

The dormitory building of this case is owned by AAAA, and all rights and duties relating to extension belongs to a school juristic person. The plaintiff only contributed a substantial amount of the construction cost, or the plaintiff also received a donation receipt equivalent to the amount of the construction cost of the house extension construction cost of the above period from AAA Research Institute. Ultimately, it is justifiable to deduct the above amount from the input tax amount of value-added tax, merely because the plaintiff was not a person to whom the tax invoice was issued but paid for the purpose of donation not for his own business.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 17(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006), the value-added tax amount to be paid by an entrepreneur shall be the amount obtained by deducting the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him/her as well as the tax amount on the public supply of the goods and services used or to be used for his/her own business, and the tax amount on the import of the goods used or to be used

"The current method of taxation of value-added tax" adopts the basic structure that provides that the total amount of self-production and input value added, in order to ensure that only an entrepreneur’s self-production is imposed, shall be the value of supply, and that the input tax amount that is paid for the purchase value added, shall be deducted from the output tax amount to be collected. Under such structure, Article 17 of the Act provides that the input tax amount that is either used or used for his own business shall be deducted from the output tax amount, as long as it falls under the “amount of tax for the supply or import of goods or services that are either used or used for his own business” under Article 17(1) of the Act, and provides that “the input tax amount for expenditure that is not directly related to the business” under subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act shall not be deemed to be a case where the Plaintiff cannot be deducted from the output tax amount under the principle of value-added Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu149, Dec. 21, 1995).

7. Determination of issues S (not being written in the basis of calculation)

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

When the principal tax and the additional tax are to be imposed together by a tax payment notice, the respective amount and the basis for calculation of the principal tax and the additional tax shall be separately stated in the tax payment notice.

(3) The defendant's assertion that the disposition of imposition of additional tax, etc. is unlawful since it imposed the additional tax, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "additional tax, etc. of this case") such as the disposition of imposition of additional tax, etc. under the issues 5, and it did not state at all the basis of calculation

Even if there is any defect in the entry of the tax notice required by the relevant statutes, if the necessary entry of the tax notice is already written in the pre-announcement notice, etc. sent by the customs office prior to the taxation disposition, the defect in the tax notice can be corrected or cured. At the request of the Plaintiff employee, the Defendant served the Plaintiff employee with a copy of the corporate tax assessment table, the tax amount resolution, and the re-revision of the value-added tax, and the Defendant’s failure to state the basis for calculation of the additional tax in the tax notice was completely cured.

C. Determination

(1) The Plaintiff’s tax base should be stated separately for the calculation basis of the principal tax and the additional tax. Moreover, in a case where multiple kinds of additional tax are to be imposed, it is reasonable to ensure that the taxpayer can per se know the content of each taxation base by classifying the amount of tax and the calculation basis thereof for each type. As such, the imposition of additional tax is deemed unlawful if the Plaintiff stated only the sum of the calculation basis of the additional tax without disclosing the same type and amount thereof before October 18, 2012. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012). However, even if there are defects in the tax payment notice required by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the remaining tax obligor’s necessary entry in the notice of tax imposition for 20 years prior to the imposition of additional tax and the amount of additional tax for 20 years cannot be deemed to have been revised by 20 years prior to the imposition basis of additional tax, and thus, the remaining tax obligor cannot be deemed to have been corrected or corrected by 170 years.

3) 다음으로 피고의 2013. 7. 16.자 2008 사업연도 귀속 법인세 가산세 22,358,223 원 및 2008 사업연도 귀속 농어촌특별세 가산세 1,029,893워 의 부과처분에 대하여 살 펴본다. 갑 제9호증의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 피고가 2013. 7. 16. 원고 에게 2008 사업연도의 법인세 및 농어촌특별세의 부과처분을 함에 있어 작성한 납세 고지서에는 가산세를 그 종류별로 과소신고(일반), 납부불성실로 구분한 후 각 대상금 액，세율 및 세액을 기재한 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 따라서 납세의무자인 원고로서는 위 납세고지서 자체로 과세처분의 내용을 알 수 있었디・고 할 것이乂로, 위 납세고지에 는 관계 법령에서 요구하는 기재사항을 누락하는 등의 히가가 있디-고 볼 수 없다원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

(4) Next, the Defendant’s late payment of corporate tax, including reduction and exemption of corporate tax, is examined as to the tax amount imposed on July 16, 2013. The tax authority imposed and notified the total tax amount to be imposed for each taxable period, the tax base, tax rate, deducted tax amount, etc. based on the statutory tax notice stating the year of reversion and the calculation basis thereof, and the tax amount to be imposed and notified, and even if the tax authority did not state the real basis or route of calculating the amount of tax, including gross income and deductible expenses, as well as the underlying law, it cannot be deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1014, Jan. 27, 2004; 2008Du11014, Jan. 27, 2004). The Plaintiff’s assertion that the tax amount to be imposed and paid for each taxable period, the basis for calculation, tax rate, deducted tax amount, etc. cannot be deemed unlawful under Article 46(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act.

In relation to the issues 5, the arguments of the plaintiff are recognized and not recognized as follows.

Date of Disposition

Items of Taxation

Business year

Amount of tax imposed;

Judgment

Corporate tax

204

21,117,525

Required

December 10, 2008

Corporate tax

205

956,4/0,513

personal use

Value-added Tax

204 1 1

82.62.765

P'P'S' and value added tax

205 1 1

43,367.490

P'g' and corporate tax

58.3

Dismissal

July 16, 2013

Additional tax amount such as corporate tax reduction

208

101,99,250

Dismissal

Additional Tax on Special Rural Development Tax

1,00도요9,893

Dismissal

8. Sub-committee:

Since the Plaintiff’s argument is well-grounded only on the issues 1 and part of the issues 5 of this case, the imposition disposition of corporate tax of KRW 225,805,753 on July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 and the imposition disposition of KRW 1,164,030,094 on corporate tax of KRW 2,225,80,753 on the Plaintiff from July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 are invalid, and the imposition disposition of corporate tax of KRW 1,164,030,094 on December 10, 208 by the Defendant is unlawful.

On the other hand, the issues 2 to 5, except the issues 1, fall under both the main cause of claim and the conjunctive cause of claim, and thus, it is not judged separately on the conjunctive cause of claim.

9. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining main claim and conjunctive claim are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문