Supreme Court-2018-Du-128 ( December 13, 2018)

With respect to the omission of offshore income and the omission of dividend income of a corporation using a foreign base company, such omission shall not be deemed an active concealment.

Even if the Hong Kong authority reported the tax amount of about 1% of the actual sales, and attached the financial statements and audit report to that content, it cannot be deemed that the document was prepared by manipulating the evidence documents such as the basic account book, etc., which is only a subsidiary of the reporting act, and the dividend income received by the second-name shareholder shall not be deemed an active act, such as the preparation of a false sales contract,

The exclusion period for national tax assessment under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2018Nu243 Revocation of imposition of global income tax

-Appellee

***

-Appellant

BB Director of the Tax Office

Supreme Court Decision 2018Du128 Decided

December 13, 2018

1.The decision of the first instance shall be modified by means of the reduction of claims in the trial after remand as follows:

(1) the Defendant was able to return to the Plaintiff on June 28, 2010.

Imposition of global income tax of 2001*,865,372,660 won;

imposition of global income tax of 202 KRW 174,520,420;

Global Income Tax for the year 2003**,304,970, and

The imposition of global income tax**,705,230 won for the year 2004;

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

See The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

1/10 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant, respectively.

Claim of the claim in the first instance court

The Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on May 27, 2010:

The imposition of global income tax of 199*0,374,314,620 won (including additional taxes);

The defendant was employed by the plaintiff on June 28, 2010.

The imposition of global income tax for the year 200*0,482,80,330 won (including additional tax), the imposition of global income tax for the year 2001*9,060,587,350 won (including additional tax), the imposition of global income tax for the year 2002 *4,165,51,840 won (including additional tax) and the imposition of global income tax for the year 2003 *540,540,583,250 won (including additional tax) and the imposition of global income tax for the year 2004 *9,351,70 won (including additional tax) and the imposition of global income tax for the year 2004 *51,956,80 won for the global income tax for the year 205 *2,659,601 won.

Of the imposition of global income tax *,076,203,420 won (including additional tax) for the year 2006, the portion exceeding KRW 1,883,404;

The imposition of global income tax of 2007*,294,675,570 (including additional taxes);

The imposition of global income tax for the year 2008*,938,793,690 (including additional tax), and

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

Purport of appeal

The purport of the Plaintiff’s appeal

The judgment of the first instance court shall be modified in the same manner as the above purport of the claim.

The defendant's purport of appeal

Among the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be filed.

The purport of the claim in the trial after the remand

The defendant was employed by the plaintiff on June 28, 2010.

Imposition of global income tax of 2001*0,865,372,660

Global Income Tax for the year 2002*,174,520,420

imposition of global income tax of 2003 KRW 126,304,970;

Global income tax for the year 2004*8,705,230 won, and

Over 34,091,989 won in the disposition of imposition of global income tax of 2005 *6,826,030 won

Part of the imposition of global income tax of KRW 72,558,190 in excess of KRW 745,20 in the imposition of global income tax of KRW 2006 and imposition of KRW 94,57,840 in the global income tax of KRW 2007;

impose global income tax of 2008 KRW 1,912,60,180;

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

[Plaintiffs, after remand, reduced the purport of the claim in the trial.]

1. Imposition of global income tax;

The following facts are acknowledged on the records of this case, or on the records of Gap evidence 1-1 to 10, Gap evidence 2, 3-1 to 10, and Eul evidence 1-1 to 10, by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.

O On November 1, 2009, the Defendant imposed global income tax on the Plaintiff in 2008, but revised the tax amount on June 28, 2010, and revised the tax amount on September 17, 2010.

O On May 27, 2010, the Defendant imposed global income tax on the Plaintiff in 199:

O On May 27, 2010, the Defendant imposed global income tax on the Plaintiff for the tax year 2004, but revised on June 28, 2010.

O) On June 28, 2010, the Defendant imposed global income tax on the Plaintiff in 200, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2006, and 2007, but reduced or corrected the imposition of global income tax on the Plaintiff.

Pursuant to the above decision of increase and reduction, the defendant must return to the plaintiff on May 27, 2010 in 1999.

The imposition of global income tax shall be made on June 28, 2010, and each of the rights accrued to the Plaintiff in 2000 to 2008.

The global income tax was imposed, and the details are as follows.

Total Amount of Additional Tax on Taxation

Reversion*9,886,623,106 won 60,487,691,514 won*0,374,314,620 won for the year 199

Reversion of year 200*1,167,237,398 Won39,315,562,932 Won*482,80,330 won

Reversion*0,865,372,660 won 18,195,214,690 won*9,060,587,350 won for the year 2001

Reversion of year 2002*,174,520,420 won 6,91,031,420 won*4,165,51,840 won

Reversion*26,304,970 won 714,278,280 won*,540,583,250 won for the year 2003

Reversion of 2004*8,705,230 won 30,646,540 won*9,351,770 won

Reversion*76,826,030 won 175,130,850 won*51,956,880 won for year 2005

Reversion of 2006*72,558,190 won 403,645,230 won*,076,203,420 won

Reversion*94,557,840 won 500,117,730 won*294,675,570 won for the year 2007

Reversion of 2008*,912,60,180 won 1,026,193,510 won*,938,793,690 won

O The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit around August 2012, and was sentenced respectively to the judgment of the Supreme Court on December 13, 2018, following the judgment of the lower court on June 13, 2014, and the judgment of the appellate court on January 24, 2018.

O The defendant revoked all the imposition of global income tax for 199 and the imposition of global income tax for 200 years, respectively, after the judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea was rendered, and the imposition of global income tax for 200 years and the imposition of global income tax for 201 to 2008.

2. Plaintiff’s request

The Plaintiff sought the revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax for the imposition of global income tax for the year 199 through 2008 from the first instance court. As to the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2005 and the year 2006, the Plaintiff sought the revocation of the remaining part of the disposition excluding the portion for which financial income was omitted.

After the judgment of remand was rendered by the Supreme Court, the Defendant revoked the entire global income tax imposition disposition for the year 199 and the global income tax imposition disposition for the year 2000, respectively, and revoked the tax imposition disposition for the global income tax for the year 2008 as well as the global income tax imposition for the year 2008. On the other hand, in the trial following remand, the Plaintiff was excluded from the purport of the claim that was revoked by reducing the purport of the claim on May 7, 2019, and the part that the Defendant revoked as above.

"The plaintiff's claim is sought to revoke the principal tax other than the additional tax imposed on global income tax for 20 years to 208. As seen above, with respect to the imposition of global income tax for 2005 and 2006 on global income tax for 200 and 2006, the part of the principal tax imposed on global income for which the plaintiff seeks to revoke the claim as above (hereinafter referred to as "the principal tax imposed on global income tax for which the plaintiff seeks to revoke the claim as above *******)."

(1) The Plaintiff’s claim is reduced as in full view of the entire evidence duly admitted as above, and as above.

The defendant's grounds for disposition can be divided as follows (hereinafter referred to as "reasons(a) or (g)", and the specific contents are as follows: (a) The dividend income from the Hong Kong corporations:

(b) The dividend income accruing from the Hong Kong corporation;

(c) Named interest income from the Hong Kong bank account;

(d) Interest income, such as borrowed name, and dividend income from the Switzerland bank account;

(e) Named interest income from investment in ships outside the station;

(f) The borrowed dividend income from the domestic investment association;

(g) A borrowed dividend income from any heat forest technology;

She also examined the grounds for the above disposition in each disposition to vest in the following.

Reversion disposition for the year 2001: (a) the reasons why

Reversion disposition in 2002: (a) the reasons, (b) the reasons, (c), and (d)

Dispositions Reversion of the year 2003, 2004, and 2005: reasons b.(c), reasons c.

Reversion disposition in 2006: reasons(b), reasons(c), reasons(d), and reasons(f)

Reversion disposition for the year 2007: (c) reasons, (d) reasons, and (e)

Reversion disposition for the year 2008: reasons for B/C, reasons for D/ M, reasons for Ma, and reasons for death

4. Determination on the grounds for the disposition

First of all, each reason for the disposition is examined.

(a) Dividend income from the Hong Kong corporation;

1) The defendant's assertion

"원고는 홍콩에***** ***** Ltd； 법인(이하***'라 한다)과○○○○○○○ Ltd.' 법인(이하○○○○○○'이라 한다)을 설립하였다. 한편으로 원고 는 영국령 버진아일랜드(British Virgin Island, 이하BVI'라 한다)에****** ******* Ltd.' 법인(이하AA'라 한다)과******l Capital Holdings' 법인(이하BB' 이라 한다)을 설립하였다.",***와 ○○○○○○○(각 홍콩 법인)이 2001 년, 2002년에 AA와 BBl(각 BVI 법인)에게 매출액의 11%를 판매 및 검사 수수료 명목으로, 4%를 감사료 명목으로 각 송금하였다.

However, the above remittance amount actually belongs to the Plaintiff, a shareholder of *** and ○○○○○○○○○ (each Hong Kong corporation). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s global income tax for 201 and 2002, including it, should be imposed.

2) Determination

(1) The judgment of the court of first instance held that the dividend does not belong to the plaintiff, but is five years after the exclusion period of imposition is also five years, and that the defendant is liable to pay the dividend during the disposition on June 28, 201, 200, and 2002.

The above disposition was revoked on the ground that the part as the grounds for subdivision was the above law.

The Defendant appealed on the part against the Defendant, and the judgment of the party prior to the remanding of the case shall have the income belonging to the Plaintiff during the period of exclusion of imposition, which is ten years after the period of exclusion of imposition of the said income belonging to the Plaintiff.

The part of the dividend payment as the reason for the disposition is legitimate, and the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance was revoked and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The Plaintiff appealed against the part against the Plaintiff, and the Supreme Court’s judgment remanded the said dividends to the Plaintiff after five years of income or exclusion period of imposition that accrue to the Plaintiff, and thus, the part of the judgment against the Plaintiff in the judgment prior to the remanding was unlawful on the ground that the part pertaining to the above dividends in the disposition belonging to the year 201 and 2002 was illegal after the exclusion period of imposition.

B. Since the judgment of the Supreme Court was bound by the factual and legal judgment of the Supreme Court on the grounds of reversal of the judgment of the case, the part pertaining to the disposition on the dividend in the year 2001 and the disposition on the dividend in the year 2002 should be revoked as the judgment of the court of first instance.

(b) the interest income from the Hong Kong corporation;

1) The defendant's assertion

The plaintiff established the International Limited1 Corporation in Hong Kong (hereinafter referred to as the "M"), and established BVI**** Ltd. Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "C"). The ○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the " Hong Kong") paid dividends to the shareholders in 2002 and 2003 ****,***** in 2003 through 2006, M ( Hong Kong corporation) paid dividends to them as shareholders *************** as shareholders, and in 2008, C (BVI corporation) as shareholders as shareholders.

그런데 위 ***, ***, ***，◆◆◆◆◆(BVI 법 인)는 모두 원고가 명의를 차용 한 주주로서 위 배당금은 원고에게 귀속되는 배당소득이다. 따라서 이를 포함하여 원고의 2002년 내지 2006년, 2008년 귀속 종합소득세가 부과되어야 한다.

2) Determination

(1) The judgment of the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the part of the above disposition on the ground that the part of the above disposition was legitimate on the ground that the part of the disposition on June 28, 2010, which was made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on June 28, 2010, as the shareholder who borrowed the Plaintiff’s name, the dividend income belongs to the Plaintiff and for whom the exclusion period of imposition was ten years since the dividend income belongs to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff appealed against this part of the judgment against the plaintiff, and the judgment of the parties to the exchange dismissed the plaintiff's claim as the judgment of the court of first instance.

The Plaintiff appealed against the part against the Plaintiff, and the Supreme Court’s decision on the remandment of the dividends is five years of income or exclusion period of imposition that reverts to the Plaintiff, and the part pertaining to the above dividends among the dispositions that accrue in 2002 through 2004 is unlawful as a disposition after the lapse of exclusion period of imposition, and the part pertaining to the above dividends among the dispositions that accrue in 2005, 2006, and 2008 is lawful.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court before remanding the case shall vest in the judgment of the party before remanding from 202 to 2004.

Of the above dividends, the Plaintiff’s appeal regarding the part against the Plaintiff was dismissed as to the above dividends as the grounds for disposition in 2005, 2006, and 2008.

(c)

Dob. After the remand, the trial of the Supreme Court is a factual and legal judgment which the Supreme Court's judgment was reversed.

Since it is bound, and the part of the disposition on the dividend in the year 2002 through the year 2004, which is the cause of the disposition, is illegal, and the above part of the disposition is revoked unlike the judgment of the court of first instance.

On the other hand, the part of the disposition for 2005, 2006, or 2008, which provided that the above dividends constitute a disposition

Since the judgment of the first instance court and the judgment of the first instance prior to the remand dismissed the plaintiff's claim and the plaintiff's appeal is filed against it, it does not fall under the scope of the judgment after the remand.

(c) Named interest income from the Hong Kong bank account;

1) Defendant’s assertion

The plaintiff established the Malaysia International Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "P") in the Malaysia, the name of AA, BB (PI), P (Malaysia) bank in Hong Kong, and the interest was paid to the above account from 2002 to 2008.

However, all of the above accounts are the interest income accrued to the plaintiff from borrowing and opening the name of the plaintiff, and the above interest income accrued to the plaintiff. Therefore, including this, it belongs to the plaintiff in 202 to 2008.

global income tax must be imposed.

ii)judgments

(1) On June 28, 2010, the judgment of the first instance court revoked the above part of the disposition on the ground that the part of the disposition on the ground that the above interest was unlawful, and that the above part of the disposition on June 28, 2010, which was made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, was unlawful.

The defendant appealed against this part of the judgment against the defendant, and the judgment of the Korea Exchangeed Party revoked the disposition as the judgment of the court of first instance.

The defendant appealed against this part of the judgment of the Supreme Court against the defendant, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea judged that the above interest accrued to the plaintiff, while the above interest accrued in 2002 to 2004 constitutes a disposition after the expiration of the exclusion period of imposition, and that the above interest accrued in 2005 to 2008 constitutes a disposition after the exclusion period of imposition.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court's judgment of remanded case was reversed and remanded to the defendant's losing part of the judgment of the party prior to the remanded case in 2005 or 2008, and dismissed the defendant's appeal as to the part of the disposition for disposition on the interest accrued in 2002 or 2004.

B. Since the judgment of the Supreme Court was bound by the factual and legal judgment of the Supreme Court on the grounds of reversal, the part of the disposition on the grounds of disposition on the ownership in the year 2005 through 2008 is legitimate and the plaintiff's claim on this part is dismissed unlike the judgment of the court of first instance.

On the other hand, the part of the disposition on the ground of the above interest in 2002 or 2004, which is the disposition on the ground of the above interest, is revoked by accepting the plaintiff's claim, and the defendant's appeal against it is dismissed. Thus, this does not fall under the scope of the judgment again after the remand.

(d) Interest income, such as borrowed name, and dividend income from the Switzerland bank account;

1) The defendant's assertion

"원고는 BV1 에B' 법인(이하B'라 한다)를 설립하였다.", "스위스계 은행인' 은행과◆◆◆' 은행에 '**'라는 가명 계좌, 무기명 계좌, (BVI 법인) 명의 계좌가 개설되고, 2001년부터 2008년까지 위 계좌에 이 자 및 배당금이 지급되었다.",그런데 위 계좌들은 모두 원고가 명의차용 등으로 개설한 것으로서, 위 이자 및 배 당금은 원고에게 귀속되는 이자소득 및 배당소득이다, 따라서 이를 포함하여 원고의 2001년 내지 2008년 귀속 종합소득세가 부과되어야 한다.

ii)judgments

(1) The judgment of the first instance court revoked the part of the above disposition on the ground that the above interest and dividend does not belong to the Plaintiff, but are five years between the imposition period and the imposition period, and that the part of the above disposition on June 28, 2010 that the Defendant made to the Plaintiff on June 28, 201 through 2008 on the ground that it was unlawful.

The defendant appealed against this part of the judgment against the defendant, and the judgment before the remand was revoked as the judgment of the court of first instance.

The Defendant appealed to the part against the Defendant, and the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered that the above interest and dividend shall have the income accrued to the Plaintiff for five years from the exclusion period of imposition. The part on which the above interest and dividend in the disposition of attribution in the year 2001 through 2004 are deemed to be unlawful as a disposition after the lapse of the exclusion period of imposition, and that the above interest and dividend in the disposition of attribution in the year 2005 through 208 are deemed to be lawful.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court's judgment of remanding the case before remanding the case shall be subject to disposition on attribution in the year 2005 to 2008.

Of the above interest and dividend, the part against the defendant as a ground for disposition shall be reversed and remanded, and the defendant's award as to the above interest and dividend as a ground for disposition in 2001 to 2004

High Court dismissed the order.

Dob. After the remand, the trial of the Supreme Court is a factual and legal judgment which the Supreme Court's judgment was reversed.

This part of the plaintiff's claim can be dismissed, unlike the judgment of the court of first instance, because the above part of the disposition for attribution in 2005 to 2008, which provided the above interest and dividend as the ground for disposition is legitimate.

on the other hand, among the dispositions devolving upon the 2001 to 2004, the above interest and dividend constitute a disposition.

Since the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance prior to the remand accepted the plaintiff's claim and revoked the disposition and the defendant's appeal against it is dismissed, this does not fall under the scope of the judgment again after the remand.

(e) Named interest income from investment in ships outside the station;

1) Defendant’s assertion

"투자법인▤▤▤▤'(이하GF'이라 한다)이 2007년과 2008년에 BB(BVI 법인)에게 투자금의 이자를 지급하였다.",그런데 위 이자는 원고가 BB(BVI 법인) 명의를 차용하여 GF에게 투자 금을 지급하고 받은 이자로서，원고에게 귀속되는 이자소득이다. 따라서 이를 포함하여 원고의 2007년, 2008년 귀속 종합소득세가 부과되어야 한다.

ii)judgments

(1) The judgment of the first instance court revoked the part of the above disposition on the ground that the part of the above disposition was unlawful since the above interest did not accrue to the Plaintiff, and that the part of the disposition for which the above interest was imposed as the ground for disposition was unlawful in 2007 and 2008.

The defendant appealed against this part of the judgment against the defendant, and the judgment before the remand was revoked as the judgment of the court of first instance.

The Defendant appealed against this part of the judgment against the Defendant, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea reversed the part of the judgment against the Defendant prior to remand and remanded on the ground that the above interest was lawful in the disposition on attribution in 2007 and 2008.

The judgment of the court below after she was remanded is bound by the factual and legal judgment of the Supreme Court on the grounds of reversal, and the above interest disposition in the year 2007 and the year 2008 as the grounds for disposition of the above interest shall be narrow and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed, unlike the judgment of the court of first instance.

(f) The borrowed dividend income from the domestic investment association;

1) The defendant's assertion

"원고는 말레이시아 라부안에H★ Ltd.' 법인(이하H'이라 한다)을 설립하여 70%의 지분을 보유하였다.",주식희사 **에셋이 2006년에 PG과 H각 말레이시아 법인)에게 투자조합의 배당금을 지급하였다.

However, the above dividends are dividends that the Plaintiff borrowed from the name of PGroup (Malaysia Corporation) and borrowed the name of H (Malaysia Corporation) in the name of 70% as 70% shares and joined the investment association operated by ** 70% of the total dividends paid to PG and the dividends paid to H are dividend income attributed to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s global income tax for the year 2006, including this, should be imposed.

2) Determination

(1) On June 28, 2010, the judgment of the first instance court revoked the above disposition part on the ground that the part pertaining to the disposition imposing the above interest, which was made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on June 28, 2010, was unlawful.

The defendant appealed against this part of the judgment against the defendant, and the judgment of the Korea Exchangeed Party revoked the disposition as the judgment of the court of first instance.

The Defendant appealed against the part of the judgment against the Defendant, and the judgment of the Supreme Court remanded the part against the Defendant in the judgment against the Defendant prior to remand, on the ground that the above interest income belongs to the Plaintiff and the part pertaining to the above interest in the disposition on attribution in 2006 is legitimate.

B. Since the judgment of the Supreme Court was bound by the factual and legal judgment of the Supreme Court on the grounds of reversal, the part of the disposition on attribution in the year 2006 where the above interest was the grounds for disposition shall be lawful and dismissed, unlike the judgment of the first instance.

(g) Co., Ltd.**** Dividend income in borrowed name from*

1) Defendant’s assertion

***** paid dividends to a shareholder** as a shareholder in 2008.

However, the above*** is a shareholder who borrowed the Plaintiff’s name, and the above dividend is the dividend income that belongs to the Plaintiff. Therefore, including this, the Plaintiff’s global income tax for the year 2008 should be imposed.

ii)judgments

(1)The first instance judgment**** as a shareholder who borrowed the Plaintiff’s name, the dividends to the Plaintiff.

On June 28, 2010, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation rate of the above part of the disposition, on the ground that the part pertaining to the dividend in the disposition for attribution in 2008, which was made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, is legitimate.

The plaintiff appealed against this part of the judgment against the plaintiff, and the judgment of the party after the remand dismissed the plaintiff's claim as the judgment of the court of first instance.

As to the part against which the Plaintiff lost, the Plaintiff appealed, and the Supreme Court’s judgment of remand is the Plaintiff’s award.

High Court dismissed the order.

D. Since the first instance judgment and the first instance judgment prior to remand dismissed the Plaintiff’s request and the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed, this does not fall under the scope of the judgment to be judged again after remand.

5. Determination by Disposition of Reversion

Next, we examine each of the dispositions devolving upon the judgment on the grounds for the disposition as seen earlier.

(a) Disposition for reversion of year 201;

In 201, the defendant's disposition grounds are the reasons why the disposition belongs to the 2001.

The part on the ground of the disposition is unlawful and thus revoked the above disposition part as the judgment of the court of first instance.

This is the case.

The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court before remanding the plaintiff's claim to revoke the disposition, and the defendant's appeal against it is dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance does not fall under the scope of the judgment separately determined after remand.

Therefore, according to the reduction of claim in the court after remand, the first instance judgment is changed, and the principal tax excluding the additional tax on the disposition of attribution in 2001 is revoked *0,865,372,660 won.

(b) Disposition of Reversion to the year 2002;

In 202, the defendant's disposition grounds for the disposition are the reasons for A, B, C, and D.

(A) The part on the grounds of the disposition is unlawful and thus revoked the above disposition part like the judgment of the court of first instance.

(B) Unlike the judgment of the first instance court, the part on the grounds of disposition is unlawful and thus, the above part on the grounds of disposition should be revoked.

(C) The part of the grounds for disposition that is the grounds for disposition is revoked by accepting the Plaintiff’s claim, and the Defendant’s appeal against it is dismissed, and it does not fall under the scope of the judgment separately determined after the remand.

(D) As above, the part of the grounds for disposition is revoked by the judgment of the first instance court and the judgment of the court prior to remand, and the defendant’s appeal is dismissed. It does not fall under the scope of the judgment separately determined after remand.

Therefore, the decision of the first instance court should be changed according to the reduction of claim in the trial after the return of the plaintiff's appeal, and the disposition to revert the year 2002 (the principal tax excluding additional tax *,174,520,420) should be revoked.

(c) Reversion disposition for year 2003, 2004;

In 203 and 2004, the defendant's reasons for disposition are b., c. and d.

(B) The revocation of the above disposition part, contrary to the judgment of the court of first instance, is unlawful as to the grounds for disposition.

I would like to say.

(C) On the ground of disposition, the part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the first instance prior to remand revoked the disposition by accepting the Plaintiff’s claim, and the Defendant’s appeal against it is dismissed, and the judgment of the first instance is separately determined after remand

It does not fall within the scope of adjudication.

(D) The part of the grounds for disposition is also a disposition by the first instance court and the judgment of the court prior to remand.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed and the appellate court is not subject to the adjudication scope separately determined after the remand.

(c)

Therefore, after receiving the plaintiff's appeal, the judgment of the court of first instance is modified according to the reduction of claim in the court after the remand, and the disposition of attribution for 2003 (the principal tax excluding the additional tax *26,304,970) and the amount of principal tax for the year 2004 (the principal tax *8,705,230 won excluding the additional tax) shall be revoked.

(d) Disposition for Reversion to the year 2005;

In 2005, the defendant's disposition grounds are b., c. and d.

(B) The part of the grounds for disposition does not fall under the scope of the judgment of the first instance court and the judgment of the court before remanding the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff’s appeal against it is dismissed, and the subsequent trial after remand does not fall under the scope of the judgment separately determined.

(C) The part of the grounds for disposition is legitimate and thus dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim under this part, contrary to the judgment of the first instance court.

(D) The part of the grounds for disposition is legitimate, and contrary to the judgment of the first instance court, the plaintiff's claim on this part is filed.

I would be to dismiss it.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is modified following the reduction of claim in the trial after the defendant's appeal, and the plaintiff's claim rate seeking revocation of the part exceeding KRW 14,091,989 out of the disposition for attribution in 2005 (the principal tax *76,826,030, excluding the additional tax) is dismissed.

(e) Disposition for Reversion of year 2006;

In 2006, the defendant's disposition reasons are the reasons(b),(c), and(d).

(B) The judgment of the first instance court and the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the case are dismissed, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the court prior to the remand does not fall under the scope of the judgment separately determined after the remand.

(C) The Plaintiff’s claim in this part, contrary to the judgment of the first instance court, is lawful for the part on the grounds of disposition.

I would be to dismiss it.

(D) The part of the grounds for disposition is legitimate, and contrary to the judgment of the first instance court, the plaintiff's claim on this part is filed.

I would be to dismiss it.

(F) The part of the grounds for disposition is legitimate, and contrary to the judgment of the first instance court, the plaintiff's claim on this part is filed.

I would be to dismiss it.

Therefore, after receiving the defendant's appeal, the court of first instance changed the judgment following the reduction of the claim in the trial after remand, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of the part exceeding KRW 145,200 out of the disposition to revert in 2006 (the principal tax excluding the additional tax framework *72,558,190).

(f) Disposition for Reversion of year 2007;

In 2007, the defendant's disposition grounds are three, three, four, and five.

(C) The part of the grounds for disposition is legitimate, and the result of the first instance trial is different from that of the Plaintiff’s claim.

(D) The part of the grounds for disposition is legitimate, and the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance is different from that of the Plaintiff.

(E) The part of the grounds for disposition is legitimate, and that part of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed, unlike the judgment of the first instance court.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the first instance court's decision after the defendant's appeal and the reduction of the claim in the first instance court after the remand, and the disposition for attribution in 2007 (the principal tax excluding the additional tax *94,557,840) can be dismissed.

(g) Disposition on Reversion to the year 2008;

In the disposition devolving upon the State in 2008, the defendant's reasons for the disposition shall be as follows: (b) the reason for the disposition; (c) the reason for the disposition

That is, the attention.

(B) The judgment of the first instance court and the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the case are dismissed, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the court prior to the remand does not fall under the scope of the judgment separately determined after the remand.

(C) The Plaintiff’s claim in this part, contrary to the judgment of the first instance court, is lawful for the part on the grounds of disposition.

I would be to dismiss it.

(D) The part of the grounds for disposition is legitimate, and contrary to the judgment of the first instance court, the plaintiff's claim on this part is filed.

I would be to dismiss it.

(E) The part of the grounds for disposition is legitimate, and contrary to the judgment of the first instance court, the plaintiff's claim on this part is filed.

I would be to dismiss it.

(G) The part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the first instance before remanding the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed, the Plaintiff’s appeal against it is dismissed, and the subsequent trial after remand falls within the scope of the judgment to be separately determined.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim that the court of the first instance changed according to the reduction of claim in the trial after the return of the defendant's appeal, and that the revocation of the disposition to revert to the year 2008 (the principal tax excluding additional tax *,912,60,180) should be dismissed.

6. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal were received partially, they were subject to the claim reduction in the trial after remand, they were canceled for 2001 (the principal tax excluding the additional tax *0,865,372,660), for 202 (the principal tax excluding the additional tax *174,520,420), for devolving disposition for 203 (the principal tax excluding the additional tax *26,304,970), and for devolving disposition for 2004 (the principal tax excluding the additional tax) and dismissed the plaintiff's remaining claims.