Plaintiff

Head of Yeongdeungpopo District Tax Office and one other

September 4, 2015

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. On September 1, 2013, the part exceeding KRW 2,011,960 out of value-added tax of KRW 11,527,590 for the Plaintiff on September 1, 2011, the part exceeding KRW 3,076,970 out of value-added tax of KRW 1,950,030 for the first period of value-added tax of KRW 9,950,030 for the second period of value-added tax of KRW 2,148,280 for the second period of value-added tax of KRW 8,250,915 for the second period of value-added tax of KRW 2,14

2. The portion exceeding KRW 9,626,560 of global income tax for the year 2008 imposed on September 9, 2013, which exceeds KRW 54,626,560 of global income tax for the year 2008, the portion exceeding KRW 1,881,430 of global income tax for the year 209, the portion exceeding KRW 55,160,630 of global income tax for the year 201, the portion exceeding KRW 12,775,690 of global income tax for the year 201, the portion exceeding KRW 7,207,410 of global income tax for the year 201, and the portion exceeding KRW 7,207,410 of global income tax for the year 201, exceeds KRW 30,167,730,2739,790 of global income tax for the year 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 1, 1992, the Plaintiff engaged in the medical business with the trade name of “○○○ Council member”.

B. After conducting an integrated investigation into global income tax on the Plaintiff in June 2013, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Defendant, etc. corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 741,958,00 (excluding KRW 15,640,000 from 208 to 2012) and the remainder of KRW 741,958,00 (excluding KRW 15,640,000) paid out to the Nonparty’s account in the name of the Plaintiff’s wife from 2008 to 2012, deeming that the Plaintiff’s amount of KRW 11,527,590 of the value-added tax on September 1, 2011 and KRW 9,950 of the value-added tax on KRW 1,950,030 of the year 201 and KRW 8,250,915 of the value-added tax on February 2, 2012.

C. On September 9, 2013, the head of the Defendant North Incheon District Tax Office corrected and notified the Plaintiff of global income tax of KRW 78,662,633, global income tax of KRW 49,492,517, global income tax of the year 2009, global income tax of KRW 61,909,716, global income tax of the year 2010, global income tax of KRW 76,237,349, global income tax of the year 2011, and KRW 20,730,862, global income tax of the year 2012.

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection against each of the above dispositions on November 18, 2013, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 25, 2014. As the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision on February 6, 2015 to rectify the tax base and the amount of tax by estimating the amount of income on February 12, 2015, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Defendant North Incheon Incheon District Office: (a) KRW 24,036,526 of the aggregate income tax for the year 2008; (b) KRW 19,688,853 of the aggregate income tax for the year 2009; (c) KRW 6,749,083 of the aggregate income tax for the year 2010; and (d) KRW 5,033,244 of the aggregate income tax for the year 201; and (d) KRW 9,4361 of the total income tax for the year 2012 as global income tax for February 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7 through 9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The burden of proof as to the taxation requirement is against the Defendants. However, the Defendants presumed the amount deposited into the instant account within 377 meters from the Plaintiff’s workplace as sales revenue and presumed to be entirely omitted sales, but the amount actually received as medical revenue is merely 150,342,00 won. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful disposition contrary to the underlying taxation principle and the no taxation without law.

B. Determination

1) In light of the following facts and circumstances, the money deposited in the account of this case can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the items in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 1 through 5, the money deposited in the account of this case seems to be medical income amount.

① The Nonparty, who is the wife of the Plaintiff, was in charge of consultation with the surgery patients and fund management while serving as the head of the hospital management office operated by the Plaintiff, and there was no income reported to the National Tax Service from 2008 to 2012.

② From 208 to 2012, the Defendant deposited KRW 221,80,000 in cash in the instant account under the Nonparty’s name, other than KRW 387,814,000, which was determined by the Defendant as a financial transaction between individuals, and deposited KRW 535,798,00 in cash in the instant account. In particular, 324 persons deposited the amount between KRW 1,000,000 and KRW 4,000 in the instant account over 424 times. A majority of the nominal holders of the hospital operated by the Plaintiff are consistent with the Plaintiff’s electronic registration patient name.

③ From among the amounts deposited in the instant account, the Plaintiff recognized that the amount was deposited into the instant account as KRW 315,838,00 at the time of filing an objection, KRW 149,292,00 at the time of filing a petition for adjudication, and KRW 150,342,00 at the time of filing a petition for adjudication, and that the amount was partially deposited into the instant account.

④ At the time of filing global income tax return, the Plaintiff reported only the issue amount of credit cards and cash receipts as sales. The Defendants also considered the remainder obtained by deducting the total amount of KRW 15,640,000 from the total amount of KRW 757,598,00 (=221,80,000 + KRW 535,798,000) from the cash receipt issued amount as sales omission amount, and thus, each of the instant dispositions was taken.

⑤ The Defendants merely viewed the amount of money deposited in the instant account as the financial transaction between individuals, excluding the amount of KRW 387,814,00,000, and the amount of KRW 15,640,000, which was determined as the financial transaction among the amount deposited in the instant account, as the omitted amount, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the amount deposited within 377 meters from the Plaintiff’s business place was entirely omitted

6) The Plaintiff asserts that all remainder, excluding KRW 150,342,00, out of the amount deposited in the account of this case, was borrowed from the branch. However, among them, there are those who refused to make a statement with the tax authority or with the tax authority; there are those who received a phone call from the Nonparty in advance or wish to disclose their opinions after making a telephone call with the Nonparty; and there are those who stated as funds lending or operating expenses. Of these, all of those who borrowed money to the Nonparty, they remitted money to the account when they were repaid, and they received money in cash when they were repaid. However, in light of the fact that the money deposited in the account of this case was transferred to another account of the Plaintiff or the Nonparty, or it was confirmed that it was used for the household expenses, etc., and there was no evidence to prove that the money was repaid, there is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion by the statement

2) As seen above, the money deposited in the account of this case is presumed to be medical income. The circumstance cited by the Plaintiff alone alone is difficult to view the said money as not medical income, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (the Plaintiff also claims that the said money violates the principle of no disadvantageous change because it constitutes a disposition more unfavorable than the disposition made when the tax base increased according to the decision issued by the Tax Tribunal, but the tax authority may correct the tax base or tax amount with omissions or errors based on the contents revealed in the reason for the decision of review. Thus, even if the tax base again determined is larger than the original tax base, it cannot be deemed to violate the principle of no disadvantageous change).

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-hwan (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-young