Cho Jae-2016-China-256 ( October 23, 2016)

There is a suspicion of tax evasion using the representative's personal property increase by reducing the company's funds by improper means.

Though it is not necessary to disburse necessary expenses because all real estate held by a real estate rental company are sold and is not engaged in rental business, the payment made to the representative and his/her family members constitutes evidence to prove omissions or errors in the contents of the report.

Article 81-6 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Jurisdiction over Tax Investigations and Selection of Eligible Persons)

2016Guhap67586 Action for revocation, etc. of a Corporate Tax Imposition Disposition

○○○○○ and one other.

○ Head of tax office

August 17, 2017

October 12, 2017

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

1. A. On March 19, 2015, the Defendant revoked the imposition of corporate tax of 67,827,120 won for the business year of 2009, the corporate tax of 69,804,120 won for the business year of 2010, the corporate tax of 64,67,100 won for the business year of 201, and the corporate tax of 27,424,920 won for the business year of 2012, and the corporate tax of 27,424,920 won for the business year of 2013, and the corporate tax of 34,66,410 won for the business year of 2013, respectively;

B. The Defendant’s bonus belonging to the Plaintiff Company ○○○ and bonus for each type of income from March 20, 2015 2009

The notice of change in income amount of KRW 386,339,100 for the year 2010 on May 4, 2010, and KRW 315,030,90 for the year 201, KRW 111,60,00 for the year 201, and KRW 76,363,890 for the year 201, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. On May 1, 2015, the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 10,512,940 on the gift tax for the year 2012, imposed on the Plaintiff Gangwon ○○○ for the year 2012, KRW 14,916,980 on the gift tax for the year 2013, and KRW 19,545,70 on the gift tax for the year 2014 is confirmed to be null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiffs' relationship

On November 7, 1996, the Plaintiff Company is a company established as a main business of real estate leasing business. The Plaintiff Gangnam ○○ holds 100% of the Plaintiff Company’s shares from November 13, 2004 to March 29, 2010, and is concurrently a director and a representative director from March 30, 2010 to March 29, 2013, and is concurrently a director and a representative director from March 30 to March 29, 2013. On March 29, 2013, the Plaintiff Company is serving as an internal director (after the ○○○○○ resigned resigned from the representative director, the Plaintiff Company does not have a separate representative director and operates the Plaintiff Company as the representative).

B. Grounds for filing an objection against the rejection disposition of earned income tax and corporate tax rectification

1) The Plaintiff Company sold real estate for rent held on April 2006, and lent KRW 4,295,000,000 out of the proceeds from the sale (hereinafter “the provisional payment of this case”) to the Plaintiff Gangwon-○, and managed the provisional payment of this amount as the provisional payment.

2) On the other hand, the director of the Gangnam District Tax Office: (a) deemed the instant branch money as a non-business-related provisional payment; and (b) deemed the interest rate to be recognized as the provisional payment; and (c) revised the revised return. On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff Company: (a) included the interest rate to be recognized as the provisional payment in the gross income; (b) treated it as the bonus as the representative; and (c) paid the corporate tax for the year 2008 through 20

3) Since then, the Plaintiff Company made a request for correction of wage and salary income tax for the year 2008 through 2011 on February 28, 2014 on the ground that it erred in filing a revised return on the grounds that the Plaintiff Company received the interest for the provisional payment of this case at issue, and that it erroneously designated the accounts at the time of accounting settlement, on March 5, 2014, the Plaintiff Company filed a request for correction of corporate tax for the year 2010 or 2012 on the ground that it erred in designating the accounts at the time of accounting settlement.

4) On April 30, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff Company’s claim for correction on the ground that the Plaintiff Company’s claim for correction was not against the Defendant’s disposition, but against the Plaintiff Company’s filing of a revised return and voluntary payment, and that it is difficult to deem it to be a substantial cash recovery, such as where the Plaintiff Company failed to present its source, etc.

5) The Plaintiff Company filed an objection against the foregoing rejection disposition (hereinafter referred to as “Objection in 2014”) and submitted to the Defendant a monetary loan agreement and the meeting minutes of the board of directors approved such agreement to lend the instant provisional payment to the Plaintiff Gangwon-do○○○. In order to prove the fact that interest was received, the Plaintiff Company submitted the account transaction details in the name of the corporation and the account ledger in the name of the corporation, and submitted the account ledger in order to prove the source of the fund.

6) On July 11, 2014, the Defendant decided that the instant provisional payment did not constitute a business-free provisional payment on the ground that there was an advance agreement on interest rates, etc. among the Plaintiffs, and that the interest rate was identical or higher than the market price under the Corporate Tax Act, and that the Plaintiff Company actually received the agreed interest and disbursed it as corporate expenses, such as wages, card payments, taxes, and adjustment fees, etc. The instant provisional payment did not constitute a business-free provisional payment. In full view of the financial transaction evidence submitted, the Defendant’s claim for correction of KRW 1,278,60,000 for the remainder of 1,278,603,000, excluding the amount that cannot be deemed as the interest deposited with the Plaintiff’s funds or paid as corporate expenses, should be accepted.

7) After August 2014, the Defendant conducted an ex post facto verification of the corporate tax for the Plaintiff Company from 2012 to 2013 (hereinafter “ex post facto verification”) and received evidence from the Plaintiff Company regarding the details of the report of the corporate tax.

C. Reasons for the non-regular tax investigation and taxation disposition against the plaintiffs

1) The Defendant: (a) was suspected of evading relevant taxes by discharging corporate funds under the name of the representative through a method pretending to a money lending contract in the form of a cash loan contract with the Plaintiff Gangnam-gu, the representative, even though the Plaintiff was actually a closed-end corporation after disposing of real estate owned in 2006; (b) was suspected of evading corporate tax by withdrawing processed sales and sales management expenses from the representative’s wife and the mother’s salary on the deposit date of interest accrued from 2006 to 2013 as the payment date of the interest accrued in 2006 to 2013; and (c) was suspected of evading corporate tax by means of a method appropriating private expenses, etc. as necessary expenses; and (d) was selected as the subject of the consolidated investigation into the Plaintiff Company (the period subject to the investigation: 2006 to 2013) on the grounds of the suspicion of outflow of corporate funds with respect to the Plaintiff Gangnam ○○ who was a specially related party.

2) On February 5, 2015, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff Company a notice of tax investigation as follows (Notice 1 of Tax Investigation) and on February 9, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff Gangwon ○○ of the same tax investigation as follows (Notice 2 of Tax Investigation).

【Notification of Tax Investigation】

○ Items of Investigation: Corporate tax

The investigation period: The suspicion of leakage of corporate funds or appropriation of processing expenses from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2013

○ investigation period: from February 9, 2015 to February 28, 2015

○ Investigation Grounds: After reviewing the contents of the report of the E company, it has been analyzed that there is a suspicion of appropriation of processing expenses, leakage of corporate funds, etc., and it has been selected as a person subject to investigation to verify the propriety of the report (Article 81-6(3) of the Framework Act

A prior notice is given prior to the tax investigation, but no prior notice was given to the return company pursuant to the proviso to Article 81-7 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

【Notification of Tax Investigation】

○ Tax Items Subject to Investigation: Global income tax

○ The investigation period: January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2013

○ investigation period: from February 9, 2015 to February 28, 2015

The reason for investigation: It has been analyzed that the details of the report were leaked as a result of reviewing the report, and it has been selected as a person subject to investigation to verify the propriety of the report (Article 81-6 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

Before conducting the tax investigation, prior notice has been given, but no prior notice of tax investigation has been given pursuant to the proviso to Article 81-7(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

3) From February 9, 2015, the Defendant conducted a non-regular tax investigation (hereinafter “instant tax investigation”) against the Plaintiffs, on February 26, 2015, issued to the Plaintiff Company a notice of suspension of tax investigation with the period from February 26, 2015 to March 4, 2015. On March 5, 2015, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff Company a notice of suspension of tax investigation with the period from February 26, 2015, and on March 5, 2015, the Plaintiff Company issued to the Plaintiff Company a notice of suspension of tax investigation, stating that the period of suspension of tax investigation was from February 26, 2015 to March 4, 2015.

4) After closing a tax investigation on March 7, 2015, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff Company a notice of the result of a tax investigation informing that the Plaintiff Company is scheduled to impose corporate tax and change in income amount on the ground that the Plaintiff Company appropriated the processed personnel expenses for the Plaintiff Company’s family members, etc. and the expenses incurred in relation to his/her private business. The Defendant issued the Plaintiff Company a notice of the result of the tax investigation informing the Plaintiff Company that it is scheduled to impose gift tax on the ground that the Plaintiff Gangwon-○ was given a donation of profits by borrowing the instant provisional payment at low interest.

5) According to the result of the instant tax investigation, the Defendant excluded the above amount from deductible expenses on the ground that the Plaintiff Company paid the processed personnel expenses to the Plaintiff Company’s family members and the aggregate of the expenses not related to the Plaintiff Company’s private use of KRW 1,218,071,00,00, and then imposed an additional tax on the Plaintiff Company on the aggregate of KRW 364,172,530 (including additional tax) of corporate tax for the business year 205 through 2013 as stated below, and ② disposed of the total of KRW 1,218,070,910 as bonus for the Plaintiff Company in 205 through 2013, and imposed the amount of KRW 1,218,070 on the Plaintiff Company as stated in [Attachment 1]’s income change notice and KRW 1,218,071,000 on the Plaintiff Company’s family members and KRW 205,000,0000 from the amount of KRW 24,04,00.

6) The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an objection on July 31, 2015, but was dismissed on September 25, 2015.

7) On December 17, 2015, Plaintiff Company filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On June 23, 2016, the Tax Tribunal revoked the disposition of imposing KRW 67,335,620 on the aggregate of corporate tax belonging to the business year 2005 through 2008, and the disposition of imposing KRW 133,750,000 on the aggregate of the corporate tax belonging to the year 2005 through 2008, and the disposition of imposing KRW 219,09,79,790 on the aggregate of corporate tax belonging to the business year 2010 through 2013, and decided that each tax amount shall be corrected by applying the general under-reported additional tax, which is not an unfair under-reported additional tax. In light of the above decision, the revised disposition is as stated in [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2], each of the disposition of imposing changes in corporate tax amount "each of the above disposition of imposing taxes", and "each of the disposition of imposing taxes" column 2.

【Ground for Recognition】 There is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13

set forth in section 1 to 17, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

As to the Defendant’s assertion that each of the dispositions of this case is lawful based on the grounds and relevant statutes, the Plaintiffs asserted as follows.

A. The plaintiff company's assertion

1) The Defendant conducted the instant tax investigation even though there is no ground for selecting non-regular tax investigation under Article 81-6(3) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 14382, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same), and (2) arbitrarily extended the period of tax investigation, and (3) abused the right of tax investigation by using all taxable periods within the exclusion period of tax investigation as the period of tax investigation.

2) Of the instant dispositions Nos. 1 and 2, the imposition of corporate tax for the year 2009 through 2011 and the notice of change in the amount of income violates the binding force of the decision accepting an objection in 2014.

3) Of the instant dispositions Nos. 1 and 2, the instant tax investigation on the imposition of corporate tax for the year 2012 through 2013 and the notice of change in income amount overlaps with the instant post-verification corresponding to the actual tax investigation, and thus, violates the principle of prohibition of re-audit.

4) Therefore, the dispositions Nos. 1 and 2 of this case are unlawful and thus should be revoked.

B. Plaintiff Gangnam-○’s assertion

Although the Defendant only issued a notice of global income tax investigation to the Plaintiff ○○○, and did not give a notice of gift tax investigation, Article 3 of the instant disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff Gangwon ○○ is null and void because it was conducted without a decision of tax investigation. In addition, the instant disposition is based on an illegal tax investigation as well as the instant disposition Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, it is unlawful in this regard. Accordingly, the Defendant seeks confirmation of invalidity of

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. Judgment on the plaintiff company's assertion

In light of the following circumstances, the tax investigation of this case and the dispositions of this case Nos. 1 and 2 based thereon are legitimate, and the plaintiff company's assertion is without merit.

1) Article 81-6(3)4 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides for one of the cases where a non-regular tax investigation may be conducted, where there is evident evidence to acknowledge a suspicion of omissions or errors in the details of a return.

Upon raising an objection in 2014, the Plaintiff Company submitted an agreement to lend real estate sales proceeds in 2006 to ○○○○○○, the account transaction details in the name of the juristic person, and the account transaction details in the name of the director of the account and the director of the Gangwon-do branch, and the Plaintiff’s account transaction details. According to the above account transaction details, it can be confirmed that: (a) the Plaintiff’s wife and the head of the account; and (b) the payment was paid to the Plaintiff’s wife and the head of the account; and (c) the Plaintiff’

The Plaintiff Company, even though it was a company that mainly engages in real estate leasing business, did not engage in the real estate leasing business after the sale in 2006, and did not need to pay necessary expenses or personnel expenses, but paid a considerable amount of money from the account in the name of the corporation, and was paid to the Plaintiff Gangnam ○’s family members, etc... As such, such money was appropriated as necessary expenses or personnel expenses, so it constitutes a case where there is evident evidence to prove the omission or

2) In addition, Article 81-7(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that where a tax investigation is conducted, a taxpayer subject to the investigation shall be notified of the items of investigation, the period of investigation, the reason for investigation, etc. ten days prior to the commencement of the investigation, but the same shall not apply where it is deemed that a prior notification

In the case of the plaintiffs, there is a suspicion of tax evasion by unlawful means, such as making a false representation of necessary expenses, by reducing the company's funds by improper means, and thus, it is deemed that the purpose of investigation cannot be achieved due to destruction of evidence, etc., and thus, it cannot be said that failure to notify the plaintiffs of tax investigation 10 days prior to the investigation of this case is unlawful.

3) Article 81-8(4) and (6) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that where it is difficult for a taxpayer to conduct a tax investigation due to a delay in the submission of data, etc., a tax investigation may be suspended, and where such a suspension or resumption is made, a written notification shall be

In light of the fact that the Defendant, while notifying the Plaintiff of the tax investigation, requested the Plaintiff to submit explanatory materials to review whether the payment of personnel expenses is appropriate, and that such materials were not submitted, and thus, the Defendant appears to have suspended the instant tax investigation by delaying the Plaintiff’s submission of such materials, and thus, the Defendant appears to have suspended the instant tax investigation. Furthermore, as the Defendant stated the suspension period in the notification of the suspension of the instant tax investigation, the Plaintiff Company could have known the resumption period of the instant tax investigation, and the Defendant, on March 5, 2015, notified the Plaintiff Company of the extension of the scope of the investigation on March 5, 2015, the Plaintiff Company could have known that the instant tax investigation would resume on the same day, even if the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff Company of the resumption of the suspended tax investigation, it is difficult to acknowledge that the instant tax investigation was unlawful.

4) According to Article 81-9(1) and (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, a tax official may not extend the scope of a tax investigation under progress except in certain cases, such as where it is confirmed that specific suspicion of tax evasion exists for several taxable periods or is related to other items of tax. In exceptional cases where the scope of a tax investigation is expanded, the reason and scope thereof

In this case, even though the Plaintiff Company appears to have sold real estate in 2006 and did not actually operate its business, it seems that it was necessary to conduct a tax investigation for the taxable period from the beginning 2006, and since the expenditure for the processed personnel expenses was confirmed in 2005 for the suspected criminal suspect in the course of conducting the tax investigation in this case, the reason for expanding the scope of tax investigation under Article 81-9(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is recognized. In addition, since the Defendant notified the Plaintiff Company of the reason and scope in writing, it cannot be said that there was an error in the expansion of the tax investigation in this case.

5) In a case where the grounds for objection in the process of appeal regarding a tax disposition are recognized to be correct and necessary measures accordingly, it cannot be reversed without any special reason and rescheduled the previous disposition in light of the purport of the law recognizing the objection system and the method of correction accordingly. Therefore, even if the tax authority ex officio revokes the tax disposition by deeming the grounds for a taxpayer’s objection in the procedure of filing an objection against a tax disposition as justifiable, it is unlawful to reverse the previous disposition without any special reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du14227, Jul. 24, 2014). However, the binding force of the aforementioned decision extends only to the determination on the specific grounds for illegality, such as the recognition and judgment of the elements and the premise thereof, i.e., the determination on the previous disposition, even if the previous disposition was revoked ex officio upon the acceptance of the objection, it does not conflict with the binding force of the previous disposition with the previous disposition, and whether it is the same or not other grounds, and thus, should be determined based on the factual basis recognized as unlawful (see, 2005).

The reason for filing an objection in 2014 is that since the Plaintiff Company lent money to its representative and received interest, the interest on the recognition of provisional payment cannot be included in the gross income. The reason for the first and second disposition in the instant case is that the Plaintiff Company’s expense cannot be included in the deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act as the processing personnel expenses or the representative’s private expense. As such, it cannot be deemed that the binding force of the decision accepting the objection by the first and second disposition is contrary to the binding force of the decision accepting the objection.

6) According to Article 81-4(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, a reinvestigation may not be conducted for the same tax item and the same taxable period, unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs.

Whether an investigation conducted by a tax official constitutes a "tax investigation prohibited by re-audit" is a "tax investigation prohibited in principle where it is expected that a taxpayer, etc. can easily respond to such investigation or that there is no significant impact on the taxpayer's freedom of business, etc." but it is difficult to regard it as a "tax investigation prohibited by re-audit" in light of the purpose and process of the investigation, the object, method and contents of the investigation, the data obtained through the investigation, the scale and period of the investigation, etc. of the investigation, etc., as a whole. However, where an investigation conducted by a tax official directly contact the taxpayer, etc. on a considerable period of time in the office, workplace, factory, or residence of the taxpayer, etc., and inquires about the taxpayer, etc. on a considerable period of time, or inspects and investigates books, documents, goods, etc. for a certain period of time, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du36084, Mar. 16, 2017).

The instant post-verification appears to have announced the Plaintiff Company to submit evidentiary documents regarding the details of return of corporate tax for the year 2012 or 2013, which was reported by the Plaintiff Company, and unlike others, it does not appear that the Plaintiff Company directly contacted the Plaintiff Company in the office of the Plaintiff Company and asked the Plaintiff Company for a considerable period of time or inspected and inspected books, etc. for a certain period of time. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the instant post-verification constitutes a tax investigation. Accordingly, the instant post-verification after the instant post-verification does not constitute a "re-inspection."

B. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion

1) Where a tax official conducts a tax investigation, he/she shall notify the taxpayer subject to the investigation of the matters such as the tax items to be investigated, and where it is confirmed that specific suspicion of tax evasion is related to other tax items during the course of the tax investigation, he/she may extend the tax investigation, but the reason and scope thereof shall be notified in writing as seen earlier (Articles 81-7(1) and 81-9(1) and (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. However, the act of a tax authority subject to restriction on the scope pursuant to the above provision is "tax investigation concerning other tax items than those notified as a matter of the investigation," and it does not include any taxation regarding other tax items. In other words, the above provision merely limits the expansion of tax investigation by tax item, and does not limit the expansion of taxation items by tax item. Therefore, even if another taxation disposition is made based on the taxation data collected by the tax authority through the tax investigation on the tax items notified as a matter of the investigation, such taxation disposition alone cannot be concluded unlawful. However, in order to mislead those subject to tax investigation with the intent of other tax items.

The Defendant appears to have confirmed the appropriation of processing expenses and the leakage of corporate funds while conducting a corporate integration investigation with respect to the Plaintiff Company, and it appears that the Plaintiff Gangwon-do did not conduct an investigation with respect to a separate tax item other than the occurrence of income from the outflow of company funds, which is a reason for tax investigation notified with respect to the Plaintiff Gangwon-do. As such, the grounds and scope of investigation with respect to the Plaintiff Gangwon-do does not seem to have been expanded. As long as the “tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff Gangwon-do,” cannot be deemed to have been expanded, barring any special circumstance, even if the Plaintiff imposed a tax disposition on other tax items based on the collected taxation data while conducting a tax investigation with respect to the tax item notified to the Plaintiffs, it cannot

Meanwhile, based on the data submitted at the time of filing an objection in 2014, the Defendant determined that there was a suspicion of leakage of the Plaintiff Company’s funds by means of an excessive appropriation of processing personnel expenses and necessary expenses, and appears to have been notified of the Plaintiff Gangwon-do as a tax item subject to investigation of comprehensive income tax upon commencement of the instant tax investigation. In light of these circumstances, the Defendant’s initial intent to impose gift tax on the Plaintiff Gangwon-do cannot be deemed to have been notified of the comprehensive income tax as an investigation to mislead the Plaintiff Gangwon-do○○, and no other circumstance exists to deem that the Defendant violated the due process principle by abusing the right to tax investigation.

2) In addition, as seen in Section A above, the instant tax investigation cannot be deemed unlawful.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant third-party disposition imposing gift tax on Plaintiff Gangwon-○ is unlawful is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Thus, each disposition of this case is legitimate, and all of the plaintiffs' arguments are dismissed as they are without merit.

Relevant statutes

(1) The former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 14382, Dec. 20, 2016)

Article 65 (Decisions)

(1) Decisions on a request for examination shall be made pursuant to the following subparagraphs:

(hereinafter omitted)

Article 80 (Effect of Decision)

(1) The decision under Article 65 as applied mutatis mutandis in Article 81 shall bind the administrative agencies concerned.

Article 81 (Mutatis Mutandis Application of Provisions Governing Requests for Examination)

Articles 61 (3) and (4), 63, 65 (excluding cases where a request for examination and a request for judgment are filed on the same date under paragraph (1) 1), and 65-2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to any request for judgment. In such cases, the period not exceeding 20 days under Article 63 (1) shall be deemed a reasonable period.

Article 81-4 (Prohibition of Abuse of Right of Tax Investigation)

(2) Tax officials may not conduct reinvestigation for the same items of taxation and for the same taxable period, except in any of the following cases:

(hereinafter omitted)

Article 81-6 (Jurisdiction over Tax Investigations and Selection of Eligible Persons)

(3) In addition to investigations by a periodic selection under paragraph (2), a tax official may conduct a tax investigation in any of the following cases:

4. Where evident material exists that confirms a suspicion of omissions or errors in the details of a return by a taxpayer exists.

Article 81-7 (Advance Notice of Tax Investigation and Request for Postponement)

(1) Where a tax official conducts an investigation (excluding an investigation of a tax offense under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act), he/she shall notify a taxpayer subject to such investigation (where a taxpayer designates and reports a tax manager to the head of the competent tax office pursuant to Article 82, referring to a tax manager; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) of the items of taxation to be investigated, the period and reason for the investigation, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree ten days prior to commencement of the investigation: Provided, That this shall not apply where the prior

Article 81-8 (Period of Tax Investigation)

(4) A tax official may suspend a tax investigation where it is impracticable to conduct a tax investigation due to the grounds prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as delay of submission of data by a taxpayer. In such cases, the period of suspension shall not be included in the period of tax investigation and the extended period of tax investigation under paragraphs

(6) Where a tax official extends the period of tax investigation pursuant to the proviso to paragraph (1), he/she shall notify the taxpayer of the grounds therefor and the period thereof in writing, and where the tax investigation is suspended or resumed pursuant to paragraphs (4) and (5), he/she shall notify

Article 81-9 (Restriction on Extension of Scope of Tax Investigation)

(1) A tax official shall not extend the scope of a tax investigation under progress, except in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where it is confirmed that specific suspicion of tax evasion exists for several taxable periods or is related to other items of tax.

(2) Where a tax official expands the scope of a tax investigation pursuant to paragraph (1), he/she shall notify the taxpayer of the reason and scope in writing.

Article 81-11 (Principle of Integrated Investigation)

In principle, a tax investigation shall be conducted by combining tax items subject to reporting and payment pursuant to tax-related Acts in connection with the taxpayer's business, except in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where it is necessary to investigate specific