Examination Income 2006-0308 ( November 10, 2006)

Whether the amount deposited in the account is omitted from the amount of fees received;

Part of the amount deposited in the account is confirmed as a transaction between persons unrelated to the omission of fees.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part that seeks revocation of the amount stated in the “amount of refunded tax” column in attached Table 1 shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s portion exceeding KRW 260,689,96 of global income tax for the year 2001 for the Plaintiff on September 8, 2006; the portion exceeding KRW 139,701,358 of global income tax for the year 2002; the portion exceeding KRW 125,356,531 of global income tax for the year 2003; and the portion exceeding KRW 127,057,030 of global income tax for the year 2003.

3. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, 90% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder 10% is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 180,785,653, and global income tax of KRW 282,921,437, and global income tax of KRW 164,737,010 (including KRW 164,737,101 as written complaint) for the year 200 as of May 16, 2006 against the Plaintiff and KRW 141,126,100 for the global income tax of KRW 201 as of September 8, 2006 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an enterpriser who is working on the defense business from May 27, 1994.

B. From March 18, 2006 to April 14, 2006, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff for the taxable year from 200 to 2003, determined that the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 1,017,356,136 (203,788,110, 2010, 324,432,916, 202, 261,875,790, 203, 203, 203, 207, 208, 208, 206, 306, 207, 208, 206, 306, 208, 206, 306, 207, 208, 206, 206, 3006, 206, 207, 2006, 207, 2006, 3006, 16, 208.6

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, claiming that the portion of the fee omitted was taxed by deeming it as revenue, but the claim was dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff did not prove that it was not an omitted revenue.

D. While the lawsuit of this case is pending, the defendant accepted part of the plaintiff's assertion as stated in the separate sheet No. 2, as stated in the separate sheet No. 2, and revoked part of the omission amount of import of this case and refunded the relevant tax amount as follows (the remaining part after the reduction is referred to as the "disposition of this case").

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 1-11 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the portion of "tax amount refunded" in the attached Table 1 is appropriate among the lawsuits of this case;

After the disposition of this case was taken, the defendant accepted part of the plaintiff's assertion and revoked part of the omitted amount of the import of this case and refunded the relevant tax amount as stated in the separate sheet 1'the refunded tax amount column.

Therefore, there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the tax amount stated in the "amount of refund" in the lawsuit of this case, since there is no tax assessment to be revoked.

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is an incidental law.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of this case on the ground that the plaintiff did not prove that most of the omitted amounts of the revenue of this case was deposited into money transaction between the branch regardless of income, as shown in the separate sheet 2, is illegal, even though most of the omitted amounts of the revenue of this case were not omitted, and it was deposited into money transaction between the branch and the branch regardless of income.

B. Determination

(1) The part to which the plaintiff's assertion is recognized

(A) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence 7-9 (including each number), the corresponding amount set out in Appendix 2 Nos. 175, 201, 203, 267, 309, and 310, as follows, shall be deemed not to be income.

① Attached 2 No. 175: KRW 50 million deposited into the instant account in the name of KimB on December 15, 2001, appears to have been deposited as part of the refund on loan, after the Plaintiff lent KRW 15 million to his wife KimB, his wife, KimB, from April 24, 200 to October 31, 2001, and being paid KRW 150,000 as monthly interest, from KimB, from April 24, 200 to October 31, 201.

② 별지 목록2 순번 201 : 이 사건 계좌에 2002. 3. 12. 한○○ 명의로 입금된 1,500 만 원은 원고의 고종사촌 이◆◆의 남편인 한○○가 의뢰한 손해배상청구소송에서의 패소에 따른 강제집행정지신청을 위한 담보비용으로 입금된 돈으로 보인다.

③ 별지 목록2 순번 203 : 이 사건 계좌에 2002. 3. 12. 위 이◆◆ 명의로 입금된 500만 원은 원고가 같은 날 다른 은행계좌를 통하여 이를 상환한 점에 비추어 차용금으로 추정된다.

④ Attached Table 2 No. 267: The amount of KRW 5 million deposited in the instant account on February 13, 2003 in the name of Kim Il-Hy, Kim Il-chul, appears to have returned the said money on the 18th of the same month after the Plaintiff resigned from office while accepting the instant case from Kim Il-young.

⑤ Attached Table 2 Nos. 309: The money deposited in the instant account on August 23, 2003 in the name of Kim Manil on 2.2 million won, which was paid to the instant account in the name of Kim Manil, and only the said money was deposited into the retainer (the Defendant asserted that the Defendant confirmed that KRW 12.2 million was paid to the Plaintiff through a telephone conversation with Kim Manil, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this).

④ Attached Table 2 No. 310: The amount of KRW 10 million deposited in the account of this case on August 23, 2003, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff paid the same amount from August 29, 2003 to October 15, 2003, the Plaintiff appears to be the borrowed money.

(B) If so, each of the above amounts (16,181,300 won for the year 2001, 16,181,300 won for the year 2002, and 22,535,000 won for the year 2003) is calculated by deducting from the omission amount of import of this case, the reasonable amount of tax calculated by deducting from the omission amount of import of this case is as shown in [Attachment 1] list 1.

(2) The part not recognized as the plaintiff's master

In a case where the tax base and tax amount determined through a written examination is denied and on-site investigation is conducted on the grounds that the amount deposited in the account of a financial institution was omitted, and the determination of the taxpayer's total revenue constitutes legitimate on-site investigation. In general, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of tax imposition, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements is deemed to be the imposing authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, unless the other party proves that the facts in question were not eligible for the application of the empirical rule, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent taxation disposition was illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13894, Jul. 10, 199

In this case, it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion as stated in the attached Table 2 only with no proof of the plaintiff or with the evidence submitted by the plaintiff as to the remaining part except the part as stated in the above Paragraph 1

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part in the column of the attached list 1 among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed. The plaintiff's claim against the disposition of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.