beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B is modified as follows:
Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. (1) The Plaintiff operated a D gas station, E gas station, and F gas station. (2) From 2007 to August 2009, the Plaintiff delegated the duty of tax return to Defendant B, a certified tax accountant, on behalf of the Plaintiff in 2007 and 2008. From September 2009, Defendant B delegated the said duty to Defendant C, a certified tax accountant, on behalf of the Plaintiff in 2009.
B. Defendant B’s tax investigation, additional tax payment, and compensation for damages in 2010 were conducted around May 2010 with respect to the global income tax return for the year 2008, which was reported on May 31, 2009, and the tax investigation was conducted around KRW 56,40,676 in that process, and the income tax was additionally imposed and paid KRW 17,814,572, additional tax, KRW 338,248, total amount of KRW 21,152,820, as shown in attached Table 1.
In addition, around May 2010, Defendant B paid KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff as damages for the imposition of the said additional tax.
C. After filing a revised return in 2013, the details of the revised tax return, the payment of additional taxes, and Defendant B’s compensation 1), the Plaintiff sold tax-free oil from the head of the original tax office on April 16, 2012, and the individual consumption tax, traffic, energy, environment tax, education tax, and driving tax (hereinafter “oil tax”).
(2) Around May 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) reported the reduction of the sales cost from the sales cost; (b) did not deduct the excess of the sales cost; and (c) received an explanation from the Defendants on suspicion of overappropriating the sales cost; (d) accordingly, the Plaintiff calculated and reported the sales by attaching 3% to the amount of oil purchase not deducted from the refund of oil tax; and (e) as a result, the amount equivalent to the refund of oil tax, which should be deducted from the sales cost, was already included in the sales. The Plaintiff reported that the amount equivalent to the refund of oil tax, which should be deducted from the sales cost, should be included in the sales cost. If the refund of oil tax ought to be deducted from the sales cost, the additional rate would be higher than 5% to 5.5%.”