Whether the prohibition of duplicate investigation violates the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation and the principle of ground taxation.

It does not violate the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation as it is necessary to verify the authenticity of the data secured in the process of investigation by the prosecution, and it is supported by objective data secured by the re-investigation, so it does not violate the principle of taxation based on evidence.

Article 81-3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Prohibition of Abuse of Right of Tax Investigation)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition shall be revoked, respectively, of 656,701,220 won of corporate tax for the year 1999 for the plaintiff on October 1, 2004, of 322,925,970 won of corporate tax for the year 200, of 14,603,140 won of corporate tax for the year 2001, of 149,243,700 of value-added tax for the year 200, of 17,561,840 won of value-added tax for the year 200, of 17,060,230 won of value-added tax for the year 200, of 4,284,280 won of value-added tax for the year 201, of 201, of 7,715,370 won of value-added tax for the year 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reason why the court's explanation in this part is that "special tax investigation" in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "special tax investigation (hereinafter "the first investigation")", "after the first investigation" in the 14th part is "after the first investigation", "after the first investigation" in the 15th part is "after the first investigation", "after July 24, 2002" and "after the third part of the 10th investigation (hereinafter "the second investigation")", "after the second investigation" in the 20th part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "after the second investigation of the director of the regional tax office of the court of first instance" and "after the fact inquiry of the director of the regional tax office of the court of first instance" in the 20th part of the 20th judgment and "after the second investigation of the witness of the court of first instance" added "after the witness of the court of first instance" to "after the court of first instance", and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Despite the fact that the first investigation was conducted to determine the plaintiff's omission amount of import, and the additional corporate tax was determined and notified, the second investigation was conducted on the same matter thereafter to recover again the omission amount of import, etc. and then make the instant disposition violates the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation under Article 81-3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(2) The instant disposition is conducted solely on the basis of the confirmation document prepared by the ○○○ without investigating other data, and thus is contrary to the underlying taxation principle.

(b) Related statutes;

former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006)

Article 81-3 (Prohibition of Abuse of Right of Tax Investigation) (1) A tax official shall conduct tax investigation within the minimum limit necessary for proper and fair taxation and realizing tax, and shall not abuse the right of tax investigation for any other purpose.

(2) Where obvious evidence exists to prove a suspicion of tax evasion, it is necessary to investigate the other party to the transaction, or where errors exist in connection with two or more business years, or other similar cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the tax official shall not conduct a reinvestigation on the same items of taxation and the same taxable period.

Enforcement Decree of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19893, Feb. 28, 2007)

For the purpose of Article 63-2 (Prohibition of Overlapping Investigation) of the Act, the term “other similar cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” means cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where a general investigation is undertaken against a person suspected of disturbing the economic order through speculative investment in real estate, intermediary and hoarding, undertaking transactions without authentic documentation, etc., leading to evasion of taxes;

2. Either a reinvestigation for the handling of all kinds of assessment data, or a confirmation investigation for determination of the national tax refund and re-revision without recourse to field investigation for taxation disposition pursuant to the provisions of Articles 81-4 and 81-7 of the Act.

C. Judgment on the plaintiff's first argument

(i)a fact;

(A) The director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○○○○ group, including three corporations including the Plaintiff, and two business entities run by the ○○○○ individual, as seen in the column of “the process of the above disposition”, conducted the first investigation and discovered suspicions of omitting sales, etc., which caused the instant disposition.

(B) The ○○○ regional tax office’s investigation ○○○ and the ○○○○ Group’s vice-chairperson were in charge of the first investigation. The Kim○, a vice-chairperson of the ○○○○○○ group, frequently opened the office of the said investigation ○○○○○, and actively engaged in social activities. During that process, political parties and high-ranking officials were friendly.

(C) On June 10, 2002, the ○○○○○○ and the ○○○○○○ affiliated with the ○○○○○○○○○○○, by reviewing which amount of taxes would be imposed on all the suspicions of tax evasion which were investigated at the time of the investigation on June 10, 202, shall prepare the details of the suspicion of tax evasion (as a result, the amount of tax to be imposed KRW 17.175 million shall be KRW 1.245 billion, KRW 8.89 billion, KRW 7.326 billion, KRW 1,22, and KRW 33 billion, respectively.

(D) On June 24, 2002, when verifying the suspicion of tax evasion by company against ○○○○○, the tax inspector of the ○○○ Regional Tax Office made ○○ sign and affix a seal on a multiple copies of the confirmation document. The ○○○ signed and sealed a part of the confirmation document, including a confirmation document (A. 9-3; hereinafter referred to as “instant confirmation document”), on which the ○○○○○ hotel’s service charge and the Plaintiff’s purchase of alcoholic beverages by refusing to sign and affix a seal on the confirmation document. However, there was a need for additional investigation on the other party to the transaction regarding the service charge of the ○○○ hotel, the Plaintiff’s service charge, etc.

(E) However, Hong○○ instructed ○○○○○○○○ to take the total amount of tax additionally collected to the entire ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ group as approximately KRW 2.3 billion, and rejected any further recommendation for the extension of the investigation period. Accordingly, upon acquiring ○○○ hotel, the Plaintiff imposed corporate tax, etc. on approximately KRW 2.3 billion on the ○○○○○○ Group as to the part of the suspicion of tax evasion under the investigation, including imposing KRW 609,343,190 in total corporate tax, as to the portion of the charges of tax evasion, where the investigation was being carried out at the time, on the part of the charges of tax evasion.

(F) After that, Red○○○ was revealed to have received a bribe of KRW 50 million from Kim○○○, and New○○ was identified to have received a bribe of KRW 10 million, and the existence of KRW 1,2, and 3 of the instant confirmation document and the tax amount for additional collection prepared by ○○○ in the prosecution investigation process related thereto was confirmed. Accordingly, the head of ○○ regional tax office was in charge of ○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○ in charge, from September 16, 2003 to June 10, 204, as seen in paragraph 2-D, the Defendant issued the instant disposition by confirming the facts by reporting, omitting, or omitting the amount of KRW 1,84 billion in total with respect to the Plaintiff, as a result of the instant secondary investigation conducted by the Prosecutor of ○○ District Public Prosecutor’s Office, as seen in paragraph 2-D.

In the absence of dispute (applicable to recognition), Gap evidence 9-2, 3, Gap evidence 10-1, 2, Gap evidence 11-1 through 11, Gap 13, 14, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 7-2, part of the witness at the trial, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(ii)judgments

The legislative intent of Article 81-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes which prohibits duplicate tax audits is to check the abuse of the authority to conduct tax audits, to induce the advancement of the tax investigation techniques, to prevent the mental and economic decline of taxpayers, and to substantially protect the rights of taxpayers by securing stability. However, if any tax investigation is conducted once, it may result in a violation of the public interest of taxation if it is not allowed to conduct duplicate tax audits in certain cases.

According to the above facts, since the first investigation and the second investigation period (three business years including the plaintiff and two business entities operated by 00,000 won) are the same and most of the suspicions of tax evasion committed in the first investigation were verified specifically through the second investigation, but the above facts and the confirmation document of this case prepared by 00 during the first investigation can be reversed at any time, and only 1,2,3 of the additional tax amount prepared by 00,000 won can be presumed to have been taxed by 30,000 won for the purpose of the second investigation or 200,000 won for the purpose of 30,000,000 won for the first investigation and 30,000 won for the purpose of 1,000,000 won for the first investigation and 3,000 won for the purpose of 2,000,000 won for the first investigation and 3,000 won for the purpose of 2,000,000 won for the first investigation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

D. Judgment on the second argument by the plaintiff

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) After having received the taxation data secured in the course of investigation from the head of the ○○ District Prosecutors’ Office, the director of the ○○ Regional Tax Office collected the taxation data, and conducted an independent analysis of the said taxation data, the Plaintiff omitted the report of the amount of income equivalent to KRW 1.28 billion, and discovered suspicions of including the amount of KRW 1.4773 billion in fraudulent expenses, and accordingly, conducted the secondary investigation for verifying the authenticity of the said taxation data.

(B) A tax inspector of ○○○ regional tax office in charge of the secondary investigation conducted an investigation by means of: (a) around January 2004, the Plaintiff’s representative director’s right to purchase alcoholic beverages from ○○○○ Company, ○○○○○ Company, and ○○○○○○○○○ Company’s representative director on January 12, 2004; and (b) the Plaintiff submitted evidentiary documents, such as a copy of transaction ledger and documentary evidence of delivery; and (b) the head of each account (the head of each account, which is a food material subject, submitted around April 21, 2004), etc. submitted by the Plaintiff (the head of each account, which was submitted around April 21, 2004), and then, (c) the private chain operator, ○○○○○○○ Company, a real representative of the Plaintiff’s business, has purchased alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 370,212,00,000 from ○○ Company, 221,325,000 won, etc.

(C) Around June 2004, a tax inspector prepared a report on the completion of in-depth investigation based on the above results. Based on this, the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant of the status of the tax decision and the proposal for the tax decision on October 1, 2004, that the sum of the corporate tax for 1999 through 2001, the total amount of 94,230,330, 1999 to 281,865,420, the total amount of value-added tax for 1999 to 2001, and accordingly the Defendant issued the instant disposition.

The whole purport of the pleadings is to be made on the testimony of the witness of the trial of the court of the first instance, the statement of the evidence No. 11 to 16, the evidence No. 1, 2, Eul No. 3-6-1, 2, 3, Eul No. 7-1, 2, Eul No. 9-1 through 10, Eul No. 10-4, Eul No. 11-1 through 4, and the statement of the evidence No. 11-1 through No. 11-4, and the testimony of the witness of the trial of the court of the second instance to the witness of the trial

(P) Inquiries on the ground of ship: Results of inquiry to the Director of ○○ Regional Tax Office of a party member

(2) Determination

2. As seen in paragraph (1) of the above 2. D. D., in light of the fact that, as seen in paragraph (1) of the above 2. A literature ○○, signed and sealed several copies of the confirmation in the first investigation process, but refuses to sign and seal some confirmations, such as a written confirmation on the service charges of ○○○ hotel, etc., a witness of the first instance trial, who corresponds to the fact that the instant confirmation document was written without any reasonable and reasonable ground against the free will of ○○○, by unilateral and coercive coercion by the tax authorities, is difficult to believe that some testimony of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○

Furthermore, according to the above facts, the instant disposition is supported by the notification data of the prosecutor's office and objective data secured by the second investigation conducted by the ○○ regional tax office, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of taxation based on evidence.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.