of the amount deposited in the office account, the stamp account and the balance paid as service fee shall be subject to taxation;

It is legitimate that the business trip expenses for issuing a certificate of liability and the amount for which the place of use is not clearly explained are subject to the taxation of value-added tax, but the balance paid as the stamp fee and the service fee is subject to

Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

December 2, 2015

January 13, 2016

1. On December 3, 2012, the part exceeding KRW 9,035,90 in the imposition of the global income tax for 2008, in excess of KRW 6,612,463 in the imposition of the global income tax for 2008, in excess of KRW 6,961,824 in the imposition of the global income tax for 209, in excess of KRW 4,074,732 in the imposition of the global income tax for 2008, in excess of KRW 27,862,851 in the imposition of the global income tax for 208, in excess of KRW 19,368,423 in the imposition of the global income tax for 209, and in excess of KRW 7,308,07 in the imposition of the global income tax for 2010.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 70% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax 10,059,810 won, value-added tax 6,943,530 won, value-added tax 6,650 won, value-added tax 4,190,650 won, and value-added tax 8,039,010 won, value-added tax 5,276,890 won, value-added tax 5,46,250 won, and value-added tax 5,46,250 won, among global income tax 31,771,930 won, global income tax 27,95,320 won, global income tax 239,3870, 209, 208, 208, 208, 2008, 208, 2008, 2010, 2008, 2008, 2005, 2008, 2008

1. Basic facts

A. From the end of November 2006, the Plaintiff operated ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

B. In 208 through 2010, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, and confirmed that 407,558,000 won (172,595,000 won, 125,435,000 won, and 125,435,000 won, 209, 109,528,000 won, and 109,528,000 won, 200,000 won, and 209,528,000 won, and 200,000,000,000 won, from the total amount of the proceeds from supply received from the clients in connection with personal rehabilitation and bankruptcy cases during the taxable period from 2008 to 2010.

C. The defendant requested the plaintiff to vindicate on the basis of the above confirmation result, and the plaintiff so explained as follows.

D. Defendant’s calculation of a new tax amount

1. Value-added tax

Of KRW 407,558,00, including the Plaintiff’s non-reported amount, from 2008 to 2010 on the basis of the results of the above tax investigation and the Plaintiff’s supporting materials, the Defendant issued a notice of the total amount of value-added tax of KRW 39,976,172,172 from the first quarter of 208 to the second quarter of 2010 by deeming that there was omission in sales on KRW 34,69,99,98, the amount of KRW 194,576,172 from the first quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2010, which clearly explained that the Plaintiff’s service fees and other expenses were 194,579,28, and the place of use was not clearly explained.

(ii) global income tax;

In calculating the global income tax on the basis of the results of the above tax investigation and the plaintiff's supporting materials, the defendant denied the amount of KRW 191,604,282 (in the amount of income, KRW 174,185,711 which is the supply price), KRW 21,374,480 (in the amount of income, KRW 19,431,345 which is the supply price) which has not been explained by the user, and KRW 34,69,98 which has been deposited to the account of the current ○○ office, and KRW 69,106,745 which is the aggregate of the service fees refunded by the plaintiff revealed separately by the court as a result of the above tax investigation, including expenses such as food, etc., which are deemed to have been unfairly treated as necessary expenses, and decided to notify the above service expenses of KRW 191,604,282 from 208 to 2010.

(c) Earned income tax;

In calculating global income tax as above, the Defendant deemed KRW 191,604,282, which was ratified as expenses, as bonus to the employees, and determined and notified KRW 16,518,332 from 208 to 2010.

E. On December 3, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing the income tax on the Plaintiff by disposing of the value-added tax, global income tax, and bonus on the non-Evidence equipment (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) calculated by making a notification decision of omission of revenue connection as above, and filed the instant lawsuit.

G. With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is a financial fee for issuing debt certificates, etc. and employee withdrawal equipment for personal rehabilitation and bankruptcy in the course of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant confirmed that the number of individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy creditors’ debt certificates received from the creditors during the instant lawsuit was 5,58 cases, and agreed to reduce the labor income tax for employees with a total amount of KRW 5,580,000 as KRW 55,580,000, by deeming that the financial fee per case and the Plaintiff employee withdrawal equipment require KRW 10,000,000, and calculated a reasonable tax amount as KRW 9,225,656, and refunded KRW 7,869,255,255.

H. In addition, the Defendant confirmed on October 22, 2012 that: (a) on October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff paid 36,860 won, totaling 30,200 won, to the client Kim ○○ on October 23, 2012; and (b) paid 8,847 won, in global income tax, to be refunded to the client Kim ○○ on October 23, 2012.

[Based on Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 17, Gap evidence 18-1 through 15, Gap evidence 19, Eul evidence 22, Eul evidence 1-1 through 12, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 8-1 through 3, Eul evidence 12, and Eul evidence 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) There was no delegation or provision of legal services from a person who deposited money in the current ○○ Office’s account. The transaction details of the said account are merely a transaction that ○○○ entered and withdrawn in accordance with personal-friendly relations. Therefore, the total amount of KRW 34,69,98 is not a price for legal services rendered by the Plaintiff as ○○○○ Office, and thus, it is not subject to value-added tax, nor can it be viewed as the Plaintiff’s income.

2) In the event that ○○ Company accepts a case of individual rehabilitation or bankruptcy, it is receiving equipment to issue a debt certificate as an agent, separate from the case’s remuneration, and the said money is paid to the employees who actually received a debt certificate as an essential cost for handling delegated affairs, in full as a business trip expenses for compensating for actual expenses. Therefore, the said withdrawal equipment cannot be subject to value-added tax on the ground that there is no substantial relationship with ○○ Company’s legal services.

3) From 2008 to 2010, the Plaintiff has a single individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy case acceptance fee.

tax reports were made in full while being managed. Accordingly, there is no amount for which the user has not been substantiated.

4) The amount of money that the Plaintiff received from the court on behalf of the client from 2008 to 2010 shall not be included in the calculation of the Plaintiff’s income amount, as the amount of money that the Plaintiff would refund to the client.

5) The above exit equipment KRW 191,604,282 constitutes actual expenses, such as business trips and financial fees, necessary for the issuance of a certificate of liability necessary for the receipt of individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy cases. This is not a tax report or cost as income tax taxable subject to employment income tax. Therefore, imposing Class A employment income tax on the said money is in violation of the principle of substantial taxation.

B. Facts of recognition

1) Status of the Plaintiff’s acceptance of litigation affairs and general procedures

A) In the case of civil, criminal, and administrative cases, the Plaintiff shall enter into a delegation agreement in writing with the client after consultation, and receive the value-added tax on the advance payment and the advance payment. The Plaintiff shall receive the case accepted, receive the stamp fee, the delivery fee, the recording reproduction cost, the cost of verification and appraisal, the witness travel expenses, travel expenses, travel expenses, etc. from the court and pay the corresponding money.

B) In the case of individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy, the Plaintiff shall deal with the case by receiving KRW 500,000 and value-added tax 50,000 for each case’s ○○○○○○○○○ entrusted by an employee in exclusive charge of the case’s individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy. The Plaintiff separately received stamp, delivery fee, record copying cost, etc. with respect to individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy cases, and paid them to the court. In the event that the Plaintiff fails to obtain relevant documents, such as direct debt certification, the Plaintiff separately received expenses related to the issuance of debt certificates, and allows the

C) The Plaintiff’s 419 cases in 2008, 290 cases in 2009, and 251 individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy cases in 2010

In 209,50,000 won (419x500,000 won), 145,000,000 won (290,000 won) in 209, and 125,500,000 won (251 case) in 2010, and 480,000 won in total (251 case) in 2010.

D) According to the Plaintiff’s understanding, the number of the creditors of the said individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy case that the Plaintiff accepted is 3,868 in 2008, 2,916 in 2009, and 2,584 in 2010. The Plaintiff received 5,558 debt certificates from the creditors during the said period. The amount of the financial fee that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff’s creditors’ list as to the said individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy case is 14,885,000 in total among the confirmed 4,229 cases in total.

2) Regarding ○○○ Office

A) The defendant has received a written confirmation from the depositor on the amount deposited into the current ○○ account, and the sum of which is 34,69,998 won, and its details are as follows:

B) On September 23, 2009, the Plaintiff received 1.2 million won, including value-added tax, from ○○ High Court (○○○○○○○○○○○○○○8) on September 23, 2009, from among those who deposited money with ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○8, and filed a tax return to issue a tax invoice under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ upon request from ○○○○○○○○ on August 25, 2010. In addition, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ corporation that actually paid the said money at the request of ○○○○○○ on the same day.

C) The ○○○, the ○○○○, and the ○○○○, and the Kim○○ (hereinafter “○○”) stated that the present ○○○○○ and the present ○○○○○○○, while having personal relations with the present ○○○○○ and the following criminal cases, were present as a witness in the prosecution investigation process and the lower relevant criminal cases, and provided that the present ○○○ and the present ○○○○ and paid all appointment fees, including expenses, to the

D) On December 23, 2015, 208, ○○○○ had been arrested on charges of violating the ○○ Judicial Act and received KRW 132,264,541 on a total of 12 occasions from those who found the legal office and handled legal affairs, such as legal counseling or preparation of legal documents, and was detained on June 20, 2013 and prosecuted on June 28, 2013 (hereinafter “related criminal cases”) at the ○○ District Court 200○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○7 (hereinafter “related criminal cases”) (hereinafter “○○○○○○”) or on charges of conducting legal affairs on a total of KRW 132,264,541 from January 208 to January 201, 201, ○○○○○ was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for 20 years or more (one year or more).

F) Meanwhile, Article 19 subparag. 1 of the ○○○○ Judicial Act provides that the above court shall punish the criminal facts related to ○○○ Joint Stock farm (Glaver○) and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ shall be punished only by receiving or promising to receive money, goods, entertainment or other benefits. In light of the legislative intent of the above Act that prohibits the legal affairs of the non-○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the benefits prescribed in the above provision shall be construed only to the economic interests exceeding the compensation for actual expenses, and if the said provision was simply receiving simple compensation for actual expenses, it shall not be deemed an offense even in dealing with the legal affairs prescribed in the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7481, Apr. 28, 200). As long as the Plaintiff was delegated as an attorney, it is difficult to view that the money received at present ○○○○ was in the name of compensation for actual expenses or received economic benefits exceeding the compensation for legal affairs.

G) On October 8, 2010, the above court filed a lawsuit against ○○○○ on a third party’s lawsuit (○○ District Court 200○○○○○○60) and a lawsuit claiming cancellation of the right to collateral security (○○ District Court 200○○○○5566), and filed an application for the suspension of compulsory execution (○○○ District Court 200○○○○○○2). On September 20, 2011, on the ground that ○○○ filed a request for revocation of the right to collateral security (○○○○○○○○○○60) against ○○○○ on a third party’s lawsuit against ○○○○○ on a third party’s lawsuit (○○○ District Court 200○○○32), and did not directly file a lawsuit against ○○○○○○ on the ground that no evidence was found to have been found to have been paid by ○○○○○○ on the ground that there was no amount of money paid by ○○○○○○501.

3) Regarding the discharge equipment of KRW 191,604,282

A) On August 28, 2012, in the course of the tax investigation conducted by the Defendant, the Plaintiff (Plaintiff) made a statement to the Defendant on August 28, 2012, as well as pure acceptance fees from the clients, and estimated in a lump sum not only the stamp, premium, service charges, records copying expenses, travel expenses, and other litigation expenses that were not incurred at the time of the contract, but also the stamp, service charges, records copying expenses, travel expenses, and other litigation expenses that were reported only pure acceptance fees at the time of the contract, and received in a lump sum at the time of the declaration of global income tax, was excluded from value-added tax and global income tax return."

B) On September 14, 2012, the Defendant sent a public notice to the Plaintiff on September 5, 2012, stating that the content of individual rehabilitation, bankruptcy expenses, individual rehabilitation, and bankruptcy expenses submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is a document that was unilaterally asserted by the Plaintiff or that was made retroactively at the time of submission by the Plaintiff, and thus it is difficult to believe the content thereof. As such, the Defendant sent a public notice to urge the Plaintiff to deliver evidentiary documents, such as electronic output disbursement receipt, passbook receipt, airline ticket, credit card sales slip, etc., within the investigation deadline.

C) The Plaintiff’s law office has established and operated rules of employment.

4) With respect to the amount of service charge refunded 69,106,745 won

A) From around 2008 to 2010, the Plaintiff received service charges from 960 clients in individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy cases, and proceeded with the case before the court, and received service charges from the court in the amount of KRW 31,284,100 in total, KRW 24,958,545 in 2009, KRW 12,864,100 in total, KRW 69,106,745 in its account (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s account”).

B) According to the transaction details of the Plaintiff’s account, KRW 32,892,30 out of the refund of the above service charges is transferred to the Plaintiff, the ○○, the ○○, and the ○○○, and the office staff, and the balance as of December 31, 2010 is confirmed to have been 2,762,537.

C) Meanwhile, according to the current state of deposit and withdrawal from 2008 to 2010, the total amount of deposit in the above period is KRW 801,475,550, and the total amount of deposit is KRW 801,480,258.

[In the absence of dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, evidence 7-1 through 960, evidence 8-1 through 3, evidence 14-1 through 5, evidence 16-1 through 4, evidence 25-1 through 6, evidence 25-1 through 6, evidence 26-1 through 9, evidence 28-1 through 29, evidence 29-1 through 30, evidence 31, evidence 3, evidence 4, Eul evidence 6, evidence 7-1 through 6, evidence 7-1 through 9, evidence 10-17, evidence 17, evidence 17-1, evidence 17, evidence 17-17, witness evidence 3-29, evidence 31, evidence 3-2, evidence 4, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-1 through 6, evidence 9, evidence 10-17, evidence 17, and evidence 10-17.

C. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

1) Determination as to the amount deposited in the current ○○ Office Account

A) From among the amounts deposited into the current ○○ account as seen earlier, the amount confirmed by the depositor as being paid by ○○○○○○ account is KRW 34,69,998 in total. However, the Plaintiff asserts that ○○○ arbitrarily received the above amount under the name of the Plaintiff’s fee. In this regard, the Plaintiff’s assertion that ○○○ received the above amount under the name of the Plaintiff’s fee. It can be determined whether the said amount paid to ○○○ by dividing it by item and dividing it into the said amount under the Plaintiff’s name

B) The portion of money received from the first Kim○ (○○○) in 2008

(1) Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-2, Gap evidence 25-1, 2, 6, Gap evidence 26-1, 26-2

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of each statement and the whole argument.

① On May 21, 2008, 200, 200, 1,520,000 won was paid to ○○○○○○ on the other charges on June 9, 2008, and 43,824,200 won was paid on June 24, 2008 as deposit and fee for ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 2,50,000, and the value of supply omitted by the Plaintiff was calculated as 2,272,727 won (2,50,000 ±1.1) on the ground that only ○○○○○○○○○○○○ was related with the Plaintiff.

② On May 2008, the court held that, while ○○○○ received money from Kim○○○ in relation to the facts charged, ○○○○○○ Joint Stock farm-related legal consultation at the Plaintiff’s legal office and received KRW 24,020,00 on May 21, 2008; and 24,020,000 on June 24, 2008, ○○○○○ received money from the Plaintiff’s legal office in relation to the legal affairs of preparing various applications, etc. for exclusive cases, such as civil provisional attachment, provisional disposition, and provisional disposition, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff received money from the Plaintiff’s legal representative as 62,84,20,000 won on the aggregate of KRW 65,344,20,000 + KRW 20,000 + KRW 1,520,000 + KRW 41,324,200 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not receive money from the Plaintiff’s legal representative for compensation.

(2) The following circumstances revealed through the above facts, i.e., (1) Kim○ paid KRW 65,344,200 in total to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but it is clearly confirmed that 2,500,000 out of them were paid as ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was delegated by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, in light of the fact that ○○○ was actually in progress, and it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff paid the above case as ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s.

C) The portion of money received from 1st century in 2008

(1) The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence Nos. 6, 7-3, 25-1, 2, 4, 26-1, 2, and 29-1 of the evidence Nos. 6, 7-3, 25-1, 26-2, and 29-1 of the whole arguments and the purport of the whole arguments.

① On January 18, 2008, ○○○ received 6,000,000 won from ○○○○○ in connection with a lawsuit seeking the return of ownership, and the Defendant calculated the supply value omitted by the Plaintiff on the basis of the above details of transactions as KRW 5,454,54,545 (6,000,000 ± 1.1).

② The present ○○○ did not receive money from the account in his own name and did not appoint the ○○○○○○○○○○○, and did not receive any subsequent complaint of the above lawsuit requested from ○○○○○○○○○. In the process of the prosecutor’s investigation, the present ○○○ stated that the present ○○○○ had used all the money for the expense of searching a person in connection with the civil litigation, but it could not be said that the money was returned, and that the present ○○○○ was aware of the present ○○○○○, and that the Plaintiff did not directly leave the Plaintiff to handle the lawsuit.

③ The present ○○○ received KRW 6,000,000 as the above in the related criminal cases, and was recognized as a crime of facts constituting the conduct of legal affairs, such as preparing for a lawsuit, on its own without appointing ○○○○○○○.

(2) In light of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., (1) ○○○○ was paid ○○○○○○○○’s own account with the above money, and (2) ○○○○○○ appears to have continued to accept and proceed with the above lawsuit. 2) ○○○○○ did not appoint the Plaintiff as the ○○○○○○○○○○, and there was no action filed in relation to the above case. 3) ○○○○○○○ received the above money, and ○○○○○○ was not aware of having received the money as the ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s fee, and there was no possibility that ○○○○○○○○ would have received the money as the ○○○○○○○○○’s fee, and there was no possibility that ○○○○○○ paid the money to the Plaintiff at will or for the ○○○○○○’s own expense after receiving the above money.

D) The portion of money received from the second Kim○ in 2008

(1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in the statement Nos. 6 and 7-6 of the evidence Nos. 7.

① On August 4, 2008, 2008, ○○○○○ paid KRW 2,000,000 as litigation expenses for real estate owned by her husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s protocol. The Defendant calculated the supply value omitted by the Plaintiff based on the above specification of transactions as KRW 1,818,181 (2,00,000 ±1).

② While submitting a written confirmation of the fact of transaction to the Defendant, the Kim○-○ was paid as litigation costs in relation to real estate owned by husband’s changed ○○○○○, the signature and seal were refused.

(2) The following circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., payment of KRW 2,00,00 to the present ○○○ as above, but there was no prosecutorial investigation in relation to Kim○○, and there was no prosecution in relation to the part of the present ○○○○○ that received the above money, ② there was no evidence to confirm whether the present ○○○○ actually filed a lawsuit concerning the case requested by Kim○○○, and there was no evidence to confirm whether the Plaintiff accepted the case, and ③ insofar as the reason for refusing to sign and affix the seals on the written confirmation of the fact of the transaction submitted by Kim○○○ was not revealed, there is doubt about the authenticity of the written confirmation of the said fact of the said transaction, and therefore, it cannot be concluded that the said money was paid to the Plaintiff only with the written confirmation of the said fact of transaction, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the said money paid by ○○○○○ was related to the Plaintiff’s business, and it cannot be deemed that the benefit was attributed

E) The portion of money received from 2 Gao-○ in 2009

(1) The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the respective descriptions and arguments stated in Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-1, evidence 25-1, evidence 2, 5, evidence 26-1, and evidence 26-2, evidence 30-1, 2, and evidence 31.

① The details of monetary transactions between ○○○ and ○○○○, which the Defendant prepared and submitted, are as follows, verified by a letter of confirmation of facts of transactions.

② Based on the above content, the Defendant calculated the value of supply omitted in the sale during the second period of 2009 as KRW 16,472,727.

③ Park○-○ stated that the sum of KRW 4,00,000 which was sent on August 21, 2009 and KRW 5,000,000 which was sent on August 26, 2009, and KRW 9,000,000 which was sent on August 26, 2009, was personally lent to ○○○○○ and was returned thereafter.

④ From a written confirmation drawn up on November 3, 2014, Park○ stated that KRW 10,00,000, out of the total amount paid in 2009 to ○○○○○ in 2009 (total deposit amount of KRW 32,474,900 - KRW 2,274,900 deposited on December 27, 2010) was paid as deposit money.

⑤ Moreover, from among the above 30,200, KRW 11,200,000, the remainder of KRW 19,000,000, a total of 30,200,000 and KRW 4,500,000, and KRW 6,700,000, a civil case’s appointment fee of 3 ○○ High Court (○○○○)’s 200,50,000, and 200,000, 200,000, 20,000,000, 20,000,000, 20,000, 20,000, 20,000, 20,000, and 20,000,000,000 and KRW 30,00,00,000,00 under the above civil case’s appointment.

(6) On the other hand, in a related criminal case, the court accepted the fact that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company received a total of 18,100,000 won from August 5, 2009 to November 10, 2009 and handled legal affairs that provide ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company with legal consultation and answers relating to a lawsuit claiming a reimbursement of a loan, payment of a purchase price, and preparation of preparatory documents, etc. from the above facts that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company filed a lawsuit against the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Incorporated Company on August 5, 200 to November 10, 209 [the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Incorporated Company on behalf of the Defendant’s private account, 30,200,000 won of the above money deposited with the Defendant’s private lawsuit.

In addition, on the premise that ○○○ received 30,200,000 won from ○○○○○ from ○○○○○○, the 10,000,000 won was personal loans, and the 11,200,000 won was paid as compensation for actual expenses, while ○○○○ was actually requesting ○○○○○ to appoint ○○○○○○○○○○, on the ground that it is difficult to view that ○○○ received economic benefits exceeding the compensation for actual expenses, as ○○ actually proceeded with the said 3 civil litigation procedures.

(2) In calculating the omitted portion of the Plaintiff’s sales, the Defendant’s remaining 21,200,000 won, which was written by Park○○’s personal loan to ○○○○○○○ on August 21, 2009, and 5,00,000,000 on August 26, 2009, and 2,274,90 won, which was deposited by ○○○’s account on December 27, 2010, are excluded, and therefore, the Defendant’s remaining 21,20,000 won are only viewed.

(3) First of all, 10,000,000 won, claiming that ○○○ was paid as a deposit money to ○○○○○○○○○○, through the relevant criminal case, is confirmed to have been disbursed as a deposit money for the adjustment of the lawsuit related to ○○○○ at the ○○○○○○’s request. Therefore, the said amount is not related to the Plaintiff’s service, and it cannot be deemed that the profit accrued to

(4) We examine the remainder of 11,200,000 won.

(A) The circumstances shown in the above facts are as follows.

① As seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Defendant submitted a written confirmation of the fact of transactions based on the current account’s transaction details. Park○-○, in preparing the said written confirmation of the said fact of transactions, written the details of remuneration, payment dates, payment amounts, settlement means, recipient and account number, and written the details recovered to ○○○ in detail, and signed the written confirmation of the said fact of transactions at the end. In addition, Park○-○ was present at the prosecution investigation and related criminal cases, and clearly asserted that the said written confirmation of the said fact of transactions is true. In light of these, the said written confirmation of the said fact of transactions may be evaluated to enhance the credibility of the said written confirmation of transactions.

② On September 23, 2009, the Plaintiff received 1.200,000 won including value-added tax from ○○ High Court (○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and filed a tax return in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which actually paid the said money at the request of ○○○○○○○○○○○ on the same day. On August 25, 2010, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was requested to pay KRW 1.8 million, value-added tax, and KRW 200,000,000,000,000,0000, which was 1.60,0000,0000 won, and 1.6,000,000 won, 201.

(B) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s explanation of the above KRW 11,200,000, which the Plaintiff received from Park○○○○, cannot be believed (the Plaintiff’s 1.2 million won, which the Plaintiff received as the appointment fee for the case of ○○ High Court (○○○○) 200,000 won, is confirmed to have been reported by the Plaintiff on September 23, 2008. The Defendant already excluded this portion from the sales omission). Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the entire amount was omitted from sales.

(5) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s 11,200,000 won out of the money that the Plaintiff received from Park○○○ was paid as a reward for the Plaintiff’s ○○ Project’s non-business, and the interest therefrom may be deemed to have accrued to the Plaintiff. However, the remainder shall not be included in the calculation of the omission of sale

F) The part of the money received from 2 Mao, Mao, Mao, 2010

(1) In full view of the evidence Nos. 6, 7-4, 5, 25-1 through 3, 26-1, 2, 29-2, and 4 of the evidence Nos. 6, 7-5, 25-1 through 3, 1, 26-2, and 4, the following facts may be acknowledged.

① On November 10, 2010, the ○○○ received KRW 2,300,000, and KRW 17.2,300,000 on November 17, 2010. Based on the above details of transactions, the Defendant calculated the supply value omitted by the Plaintiff as KRW 4,181,818 ( KRW 4,60,000 ±1).

② On September 3, 2010, 201, ○○ received KRW 2,600,000, and KRW 2,350,000 on September 10, 2010, and the Defendant calculated the supply value omitted by the Plaintiff based on the above details of transactions as KRW 4,50,000 ( KRW 4,950,000).

③ During the prosecutor’s investigation process, ○○○ stated that the current ○○ account was known to the Plaintiff’s legal account in the Plaintiff’s legal office and that the current ○○ account was in progress with the process of civil litigation, and that the current ○○○○ was aware of the progress of the process of civil litigation, and that the Plaintiff did not confirm it separately, and that the process of the lawsuit or the result of the lawsuit was entirely collected.

④ In a related criminal case, ○○○○ received KRW 10,100,000, including KRW 4,600,000, which was paid as ○○○○○’s election fee, from ○○○○○○○, and 4,950,000, under the name of ○○○○○○○○’s election fee (However, the amount received was recognized as only KRW 2,90,09,640, which was calculated by subtracting KRW 2,909,640, which was the sum of the litigation costs, such as stamp amount, service fee, deposit money, etc. from KRW 4,50,00, which was paid as ○○○○○○○’s election fee, and instead, instead of appointing ○○○○, it was recognized as

(2) In light of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, ① ○○ was paid ○○○○’s own account from regular ○○ and regular ○○○○○○○, and the Plaintiff did not appoint the Plaintiff as ○○○○○○○○ upon receiving the said money, and there were no lawsuits filed in connection with the above facts, the Plaintiff appears to have known ○○○○○○○○ upon receiving the said money, ② the ○○○○ received the said money from the said ○○○○ and the ○○○○○○ was at the ○○○○○○○, and the progress was delayed, and there was no confirmation whether the ○○○○ was at the ○○○○○○○’s own expense, and there was no possibility that the ○○○○ was at the ○○○○○○’s own expense, and there was no reasonable relationship between the Plaintiff and the ○○○○○○ and the ○○○○ also paid the said money to the Plaintiff on his own account.

G) Sub-determination

In full view of the above facts, 2,50,000 won (the supply price of KRW 2,272,727), and 11,200,000 (the supply price of KRW 10,181,818), from among the money received from ○○○○ from ○○○ in January 2008 Kim○ (the joint stock farm of ○○○○○), and the money received from ○○○ in February 2009 (the supply price of KRW 10,181,818) were received in return for the provision of legal services as the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○, and its profits were attributed to the Plaintiff. However, the remaining parts are arbitrarily received by ○○○, and they are not included in value-added tax or income tax calculation,

2) As to the assertion that the withdrawal equipment for issuing a certificate of liability cannot be subject to value-added tax

A) The Plaintiff: (a) received from the clients all the litigation costs, including the stamp that did not occur at the time of the contract; (b) reported only the fee at the pure declaration of value-added tax and global income tax; and (c) did not settle the costs incurred after the rent; and (d) excluded the Plaintiff from the return of value-added tax and global income tax. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the withdrawal equipment for issuing the debt certificate, out of the litigation costs received from the clients, may not be subject to value-added tax, as the amount of compensation for actual expenses paid to the employees who are going on a business trip and obtained the debt certificate.

B) On the premise that the cost of issuing the above certificate of debt constitutes reimbursement for actual expenses, we examine whether the amount is subject to the assessment of value-added tax.

C) Article 1(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the value-added tax shall be imposed on the supply of goods or services, and on the import of goods. Article 1(4) provides that the supply of goods or services essential to the supply of goods, which are the main transaction, shall be included in the supply of goods, and the supply of goods or services essential to the supply of services, which are the main transaction, shall be deemed included in the supply of services, which are the main transaction. In addition, Article 11 Subparag. 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the supply of services, which are the object of value-added tax, is provided on all contractual or legal grounds. In full view of the regulatory structure and content regarding the supply of services under the Value-Added Tax Act, if it is deemed that the amount received on the basis of contractual or legal grounds, is an economic and substantial quid

D) The circumstances revealed in the above facts are as follows.

① In the case of bankruptcy, the Plaintiff is subject to separate charges for personal rehabilitation. The Plaintiff’s personal ground, service charges, recording reproduction costs, etc., in which the Plaintiff received KRW 550,00 per case. In this case, if the client fails to obtain relevant documents, such as the certificate of debts, the Plaintiff’s business trip is issued with separate expenses for issuing the certificate of debts. As seen earlier, Article 302(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that an application for bankruptcy shall be accompanied by the list of creditors, and Article 589(1) provides that a debtor’s property and obligations shall be stated in the application for individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy, and Article 589(2) provides that a list of individual rehabilitation creditors (referring to the list of creditors, address, cause of claims, and amount of claims) shall be attached to the application. In light of these provisions, the certificate of debts is almost all personal rehabilitation documents necessary to identify the current status of creditors and the amount of debts.

② In addition, according to the agreement that the Plaintiff accepted individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy cases and entered into with the clients, it stated that the Plaintiff was immediately paid for the stamp, delivery fee, records copying cost, business trip cost, and other litigation costs, other than the retainer to handle the delegated affairs, and according to the Defendant’s confirmation, the Plaintiff received 5,558 debt certificates from the creditors from 2008 to 2010. In light of the Plaintiff’s business form, details of handling expenses, etc., it appears that the Plaintiff was acting as an agent for issuing debt certificates, incidental to the business related to the application for individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy.

E) In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the equipment that the Plaintiff received upon acceptance of the case of individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy exists in the relationship between the Plaintiff’s individual rehabilitation, the provision of legal services related to bankruptcy and the economic and material consideration. Accordingly, the above amount is subject to the imposition of value-added tax.

3) Determination as to KRW 21,374,480 on which the place of use is not clearly explained

A) As seen earlier, the Defendant calculated the total amount of KRW 938,00 ( KRW 402,745,00 in 2008 + KRW 286,905,00 in 2009 + KRW 248,374,00 in 209 + KRW 248,374,00 in 200) based on the personal rehabilitation and the receipts related to the bankruptcy held by the Plaintiff, based on the aggregate amount of the remuneration, including value-added tax, KRW 938,024,00 (including value-added tax) including value-added tax, + KRW 230,46,00 in 150 in 208 + KRW 161,470 in 208 in 209 + KRW 4086,50 in 20 in 208 in 200, KRW 7084 in 200 in 205,54 in 208 (the remainder of the reported amount).

B) As the Plaintiff raises questions on the above calculation method presented by the Defendant itself, it is examined where the above calculation method is legitimate, and where the Plaintiff is responsible to prove the specific amount of taxable income on the basis thereof.

C) In revising the final tax base return of a taxpayer due to an error or omission in the tax base return, it is deemed that the details of the tax return are erroneous or omitted, but if it is recognized that there are other data and it is possible to conduct a field investigation, it can also be corrected by other data. On the other hand, on-site investigation is an objective method so long as it is possible to capture actual income. As such, on-site investigation is no specific method to determine the total revenue amount of a taxpayer by investigating the amount deposited in the financial institution account of the taxpayer, it constitutes a legitimate on-site investigation with objectivity. In general, if the burden of proof regarding the facts of taxation in the process of revocation of disposition imposing tax is proved to be a taxpayer, but if it is proved that the other party is not eligible to apply the empirical rule, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the requirements of taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du14284, Apr. 27, 2004; 203Du32947, Feb. 29, 201204).

D) As seen earlier, since August 2012, the Defendant calculated the sum of the remuneration, stamp, service fees, and other fees, including value-added tax, based on personal rehabilitation, receipts related to bankruptcy, and the amount deposited to the Plaintiff’s financial institution account, which the Plaintiff had kept by conducting a tax investigation with the Plaintiff from August 2012, by calculating the sum of the proceeds from supply that the Plaintiff received from the client, and deemed the remainder that remains after deducting the amount indicated in the ○○○○○ History’s remuneration (including value-added tax) from that amount as the unreported amount. In addition, the remainder that remains after deducting the service charges, other expenses, business travel expenses, based on the materials explained by the Plaintiff, was determined as

In light of the above legal principles, the defendant determines the total revenue of the plaintiff by the above method, and considering the remainder other than the part explained by the plaintiff as an unexplosion amount belongs to a legitimate on-site investigation method which is objectivity.

E) Furthermore, under the premise that such calculation method, and the result is based on the objective field investigation method, the following facts revealed in the above facts, namely, ① the Plaintiff, as ○○○○○○, 419 cases in 2008, 290 cases in 2009, and 251 cases in 2010, and the Defendant accepted the bankruptcy case, and calculated the total amount of income by entering the receipts issued by the Plaintiff to the client in whole. ② The receipt issued by the Plaintiff to the client is divided into the remuneration amount and public charge column, and the remuneration amount is divided into KRW 500,000 and the additional fee is divided into KRW 50,00,000. The public charge column is just in light of the following circumstances: (i) the Plaintiff’s personal rehabilitation case as ○○○○○○, 209, 200, and 3200, and 200, the Plaintiff’s receipts were found to have been paid to the Plaintiff based on the above presumption amount of the receipts.

F) Therefore, the Plaintiff should prove the circumstances that the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have accrued to the Plaintiff upon completion of the vindication of the above amount.

G) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the amount of the unregistered amount as above is nothing more than the difference with the stamp (10,166,000 won, 6,368,000 won, 209, 5,842,000 won, 2010) that the Plaintiff paid to a court pursuant to the Act on the Stamps Attached to Civil Litigation, etc... Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the amount of the unregistered amount is nothing more than the difference with the unregistered amount, and the KRW 10,166,000 paid in 208, and the amount of KRW 6,368,000 paid in 209, would rather be 1,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff, and the amount of KRW 5,842,000 paid in 20,000,000,0000 paid in 20,000 won and KRW 920,000 paid in 209,000.

H) However, in light of the following circumstances revealed through the above fact-finding, the data alone, submitted by the Plaintiff, is insufficient to deem the amount of the Plaintiff’s failure to present at the court as being identical to the stamp paid by the Plaintiff to have been reflected in the Plaintiff’s income amount in duplicate, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Ultimately, the amount of KRW 21,374,480, which the Plaintiff failed to vindicate, should be included in the Plaintiff’s income amount as being directly related to the Plaintiff’

① There is no objective data to confirm whether the Plaintiff was paid to the court the amount actually claimed by the Plaintiff after accepting 419 cases in April 2008, 2009, and 251 individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy cases in 2010.

② The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff received 32,000 won in the case of individual rehabilitation from the clients in the case of individual rehabilitation and 2,000 won in the case of individual bankruptcy, and that the Plaintiff also received receipts issued by the Plaintiff. Article 9(1)3 of the Act on the Stamps of Civil Litigation, etc. provides that the application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures is subject to 30,00 won in the case of application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures, and 2,000 won in the case of application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures, which differs from the amount claimed by the Plaintiff.

③ Nevertheless, the court did not specify the details of calculation or the method of calculation of the stamp (it does not indicate that the stamp in the individual rehabilitation case is calculated as KRW 30,000, and that it is calculated as KRW 32,000).

④ As above, in the stamp column of the receipt issued by the Plaintiff to the client, many receipts indicating 32,00 won in the case of a personal rehabilitation case, and 2,000 won in the case of a bankruptcy case are discovered, and the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff received 32,00 won in the case of a personal rehabilitation case from the clients, and 2,000 won in the case of a personal bankruptcy case, and 2,000 won in the case of a personal bankruptcy case, and on this basis, the Defendant could have easily calculated and reflected in the amount of income. In light of the above, the Defendant appears to include the stamp in the “other expenses calculated by deducting the details of the Plaintiff

4) Determination as to KRW 69,106,745 of the service charges that the Plaintiff received from the court

A) Evaluation of the nature of service fees refunded by the court and the act of keeping them in custody

(1) As seen earlier, from around 2008 to 2010, the Plaintiff received service fees from 960 clients for individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy cases and brought them to the court and continued the case, and then refunded from the court the service fees of KRW 31,284,10 in 2008, KRW 24,958,545 in 2009, KRW 12,864,100 in 209, and KRW 69,106,745 in 2010 in its account (hereinafter “Plaintiff account”). However, the service fees refunded as above was paid by the client more than the service fees that the client should pay to the court for convenience, which is the amount that should be refunded to the clients who paid the service fees.

However, as seen earlier, according to the transaction details of the Plaintiff’s account, KRW 32,892,30 out of the refund of the above service charges was confirmed to have been transferred to the Plaintiff, the ○○○○○○, the ○○○○○ Office’s office staff, and the ○○○○○○○○○○○ Office, and on December 31, 2010, the remaining amount as of December 31, 2010 was confirmed to have been KRW 2,762,537. According to the current status of deposit and withdrawal from 2008 to 2010, the total amount deposited was KRW 801,475,550 during the above period, and the total amount deposited was almost KRW 801,480,258, taking into account that the Plaintiff’s details of refund were not verified to the clients (in the process of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff did not refund KRW 6,600,602, 3630,2012.

(2) As such, the Plaintiff can be deemed to have obtained a profit equivalent to the above amount by keeping the refund of the above service fees to the clients, and such income of the Plaintiff constitutes so-called illegal income.

B) Whether taxation disposition on illegal income is allowed

(1) The fundamental purpose of the Income Tax Act is to impose income tax on an individual based on the economic phenomenon that he/she has a tax-bearing capacity, and thus, it is sufficient to deem that the taxable income has a tax-bearing capacity in terms of the economic aspect and has a tax-bearing capacity, and it is reasonable to deem that there is a tax-bearing capacity in terms of the economic aspect, and the legal assessment of the causal relationship in which he/she has earned the income does not necessarily have to be lawful and effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Nu136, Oct. 25, 1983; 95Nu758, Nov. 10, 195).

(2) Based on these legal principles, the Plaintiff asserted that the above amount of refund was not ultimately reverted to the Plaintiff, i.e., money to be refunded to the clients. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s most of the above amount of refund was confirmed to have been transferred to the Plaintiff, the head of the office, and employees. ② The Plaintiff’s amount of refund was determined to have been transferred to the Plaintiff, and the client’s amount of service fee was then small, and later, it was used as the cost of the relevant office meal, and it was also used for the Defendant’s account managed by the ○○○○○, the office, and the head of the office. The Plaintiff stated that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to arbitrarily transfer part of the amount of refund to the Plaintiff from the above amount of refund to the Plaintiff because it was necessary or difficult for the ○○○○, etc. to lend money to the clients. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s considerable amount of refund from 20 years to 10 days to 20 days to 20 days to 30 days to 20 days to 2.

(3) Accordingly, the amount of the above service charges refunded to the Plaintiff constitutes other income in consideration of the services rendered by the Plaintiff, ○○○○, by utilizing his knowledge or skills, for remuneration or other consideration pursuant to Article 21(1)19(d) of the Income Tax Act.

5) As to the origin equipment of KRW 191,604,282 as the object of taxation of earned income tax

A) As seen earlier, in general, the burden of proving the fact of taxation requirements in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition should be borne by the imposing authority. However, where it is proved that the fact of taxation requirements has been presumed in light of the empirical rules in the course of a specific lawsuit, unless the taxpayer proves that the pertinent fact at issue is inappropriate to apply the empirical rules or that there are special circumstances to exclude the application of such empirical rules in the pertinent case, the pertinent taxation disposition cannot be readily concluded as an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements.

B) As seen earlier, the Defendant calculated the sum of the remuneration, including value-added tax, stamp, delivery fees, and other fees received from the client based on personal rehabilitation and the receipts related to the case in which the Plaintiff was in custody, and deemed the amount of KRW 407,558,000, which remains after deducting the amount indicated as ○○○○○○ (including value-added tax) from such amount. Among them, the Defendant recognized the amount of KRW 191,604,282, which was explained by the Plaintiff as is, as it is, in the disposition imposing global income tax, calculated the amount of income in the disposition imposing global income tax on the Plaintiff, and instead confirmed it as expenses for general business trip, the Defendant recognized it as a de facto bonus for the employees and imposed Class A income tax on it. In addition, during the proceeding of the lawsuit in this case, the Plaintiff confirmed the number of debt-proof sources received from the creditors from 208 to 2010, and excluded the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 505,505,000,50 for each case.

C) As can be seen, the Defendant determined that: (a) the Plaintiff’s equipment was 191,60,282 won based on the details explained by the Plaintiff; (b) personal rehabilitation and bankruptcy case that the Plaintiff accepted from 2008 to 2010; (c) the total number of creditors (2,58 persons in 2008, 2,916, and 2,584 persons in 2010); (d) the 5,558 debt certification costs issued by the Plaintiff; and (e) the amount of the financial fee paid by the Plaintiff (6,452 cases which were confirmed among 6,452 cases, 14,85,000 won, which were recorded on the 4,229 items of the Plaintiff’s business travel expenses; and (e) the Plaintiff did not appear to have been separated from the records and other legal expenses that were actually paid by the Plaintiff based on the employment rules of the Plaintiff’s office; and (e) the Plaintiff did not appear to have been paid the Plaintiff’s total amount of the litigation expenses.

D) As such, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff ought to prove whether the amount paid as the business trip expense has been actually paid in consideration of the nature and degree of difficulty of proof, etc. of the Plaintiff’s taxation requirement.

E) The circumstances revealed in the above facts are as follows.

① As seen earlier, the Plaintiff received fees, stamp fees, delivery fees, recording copying expenses, travel travel expenses, and other litigation costs from the clients in a lump sum, and did not settle the actual costs incurred thereafter, and did not record the travel expenses and other litigation costs separately by item. In light of the fact that there is no record of the business trip expenses and other litigation costs, there is no material that can confirm that the said costs have been paid for the business trip expenses.

② The Plaintiff did not verify the details of the use of the dispatch equipment from the employees who made a business trip, and did not receive receipts related thereto.

③ On September 5, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a letter of individual rehabilitation, bankruptcy, and the disbursement of expenses for individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy case travel. However, according to the Defendant, it was either unilaterally arranged by the Plaintiff or that it was a document made of the first preparation date retrospectively at the time of submission by the Plaintiff (not disputing the Plaintiff). Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot trust the content of the said document. In addition, on September 14, 2012, the Plaintiff was an official document from the Defendant demanding the Defendant to submit the receipt of electronic output payment, passbook receipt, air ticket receipt, credit card sales slip, etc. within the investigative period, but did not submit the above evidentiary documents.

F) In full view of the above circumstances, the part of KRW 136,024,282, which is the part of KRW 55,580,00,00, which the Plaintiff’s 191,604,282 paid at the Plaintiff’s business trip, excluded from the Defendant’s 55,580,00 won, cannot be deemed as being used as the actual business trip expenses, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the above amount was paid to the Plaintiff’

D. Whether each disposition of this case is unlawful

1) Whether each of the dispositions of the instant case is legitimate on the grounds of the aforementioned determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion

shall be deemed to be applicable.

2) Disposition imposing value-added tax

A) As seen earlier, it is justifiable that the Defendant’s business trip expenses and the user’s place of business for issuing a certificate of liability are included in the subject of the imposition of value-added tax. Therefore, the imposition of value-added tax on 1 January 2009 and 1 January 2010 without the amount deposited in the current ○○○ Office’s account is justifiable; hereinafter the Defendant’s inclusion in the subject of the imposition of value-added tax on the remainder of the imposition of value-added tax, on the premise that it is legitimate, based on whether the amount of money deposited in the current ○○ Office’s account may be included in the subject of the imposition of value-added tax.

B) a disposition imposing value-added tax on 1 year 2008

"As seen earlier, 5,45 won equivalent to the value of supply of the amount deposited by Ma○○○, out of 7,727,272 won which the Defendant recognized as omitting sales, among the amounts subject to the imposition of the value-added tax for the first period of January 2008, should be deducted from the amount of the value-added tax omitted. The value-added tax calculated based on such tax base is 9,035,90 won as stated in the final tax payment column in the following table. Therefore, the Defendant’s imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of 2008 exceeds 9,035,990 won among the imposition of the value-added tax for the first period of 1,208.

As seen earlier, 1,818,181 won corresponding to the value of supply of the amount deposited by Kim○○, among the amounts subject to the imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of two years in 2008, should be deducted from the omitted sales of the value-added tax. The value-added tax calculated based on such tax base is 6,612,463 won as indicated in the “final tax amount” column below. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition imposing the value-added tax for the second period of two years in 2008, which exceeds 6,612,463 won, is unlawful.

As seen earlier, KRW 10,181,818, which is equivalent to the supply value of KRW 11,200,00, out of the amount deposited by Park○○, which is subject to the imposition of value-added tax on February 2, 2009, is subject to the imposition of value-added tax, should not be included in the remainder. Therefore, the amount exceeding KRW 6,290,90 ( KRW 16,472,727 - 10,181,8188) corresponding to the difference is unlawful.

E) Disposition imposing value-added tax on 2010

As seen earlier, the amount deposited by Ma○○ and Ma○○○○○, which was subject to the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of two years in 2010, shall not be included in the subject of the imposition of value-added tax. Therefore, the sum of KRW 4,181,818, and KRW 8,681,818, which is equivalent to the value of supply deposited by Ma○○○○○, should be deducted from the amount of sales omission. The value-added tax calculated on the basis of such tax base is KRW 4,074,732, as indicated in the final tax payment column for the “final tax amount” column for the following table. Accordingly, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second period of two years in 2010 exceeds KRW 4,074,732, which is unlawful, and KRW 3) the imposition of global income tax.

A) Based on the amount of income originally reported by the Plaintiff, the Defendant denied necessary expenses by deeming the sum of KRW 191,604,282 (including KRW 174,185,71, which is the amount of income) and the amount for which the Defendant’s place of use was not clearly explained (including KRW 19,431,345, which is the supply price), and KRW 69,106,745, which is the sum of the service fees refunded from the court by the Plaintiff to be the amount of income; and KRW 17,918,604,282, which is the above service expenses, including food expenses, was treated unlawfully; and confirmed as expenses. However, it is justifiable to deem that the Defendant’s aforementioned service expenses cannot be viewed as the Plaintiff’s income in the current ○○ office account included in the income amount, and thus, it is reasonable to deem the imposition of the global income tax to be legitimate in each taxable year.

B) a disposition imposing global income tax for 2008

2,272,727 won (2,500,000 ±1.1) which ○○○ received from Kim○○ (○○ Joint Stock farm)

“Plaintiff’s income, but 5,45 won (6,00,000 won ±1.1) received from ○○○○○ and 1,818,181 won (2,00,000 won ±1.1) received from ○○○○○ and 1,818,181 won (2,00,000 won) received from ○○○○ shall not be regarded as Plaintiff’s income. Accordingly, global income tax calculated based on the above tax base is KRW 27,862,851 as indicated in the “final tax amount” column in the “final tax amount” column below. Accordingly, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of global income tax for 2008 is unlawful.”

"The amount of 16,472,727 won (11,20,000 won ±11,200) of 16,181,818 won (11,200,000 won ±1.1) which the Defendant received from ○○○○○ from ○○○○ as income subject to taxation can be seen as the Plaintiff’s income, but the remainder is not considered as the Plaintiff’s income, and thus, it should be excluded from the amount of income. The global income tax calculated on the basis of the above tax base is KRW 19,368,423 as indicated in the “final tax amount” column. Accordingly, the Defendant’s imposition of global income tax for the imposition of global income tax for the year 209 is unlawful.”

“4,181,818 won (4,600,000 won ±1.1) and 4,500,000 won received by ○○○○○ from ○○○○○○○○○○, which were received by ○○○○○○○○○, shall not be deemed the Plaintiff’s income, and this part shall be excluded from the amount of income. The global income tax calculated on the basis of the above tax base is KRW 7,308,00 as indicated in the final tax payment column as follows. Therefore, the portion exceeding KRW 7,308,00 in the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2010 is unlawful.”

A) As seen earlier, it is legitimate that the part of KRW 136,580,282, which the Defendant’s 191,60,282 deemed as a business trip expense and imposed a labor income tax on the Plaintiff’s employees after deducting KRW 55,580,00,00, which is deemed as a salary or bonus for the Plaintiff’s employees. As such, the above disposition is legitimate (However, the Defendant calculated a reasonable tax amount after deducting the above KRW 55,580,00 among the taxable objects of earned income tax in the lawsuit in this case, at KRW 9,225,656, and refunded KRW 7,869,255, which is considered as a reasonable tax amount. The rectification disposition does not include the initial return or imposition disposition and the separate taxation disposition, but also changes the original tax return or imposition disposition, and thus causes a partial revocation of tax amount. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s request for correction is not subject to revocation of the original tax return or the final decision of correction, but is not subject to revocation of an appeal litigation decision (see Supreme Court Decision 201940.16.

3. Conclusion

Thus, among the plaintiff's claims, the imposition of the value tax in January 2008, the imposition of the value tax in February 2008, the imposition of the value tax in February 2009, the imposition of the value tax in February 2009, the imposition of the value tax in February 2010, and the imposition of each global income tax are reasonable within the scope of the above recognition