Incheon District Court 2014Guhap32930 ( November 26, 2015)

The sum of income of the senior executive officers to the actual business operator.

(The same as the judgment of the first instance court) The purpose of tax evasion is to evade the income tax by evading the progressive tax rate by means of filing a false operating contract and filing a distributed tax return on sales with the intent of tax evasion.

Additional tax on underreporting and overreporting under Article 47-3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Seoul High Court 2015Nu69746

OO

○ Head of tax office

Incheon District Court Decision 2014Guhap32930 Decided November 26, 2015

2016.05.04

2016.05.19

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The value-added tax for the second period of January 2, 2011 rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on January 2, 2014.

32,797,150 won, value-added tax for the first period of 2012, 58,405,590 won, and value-added tax for the second period of 2012

67,39,370 won, global income tax for the year 2004, 25,394,660 won, global income tax for the year 2005

19,69,480 won, global income tax of 2006, global income tax of 16,985,090 won, global income tax of 2007

26,160,020 won, global income tax for the year 2008 20,334,950 won, global income tax for the year 2009

28,551,010 won, global income tax for the year 2010, global income tax for 42,031,940 won, global income tax for the year 2011

Each disposition of imposition of KRW 109,204,050, and the global income tax of KRW 388,001,80 for the year 2012 (each of the above surcharges)

Each disposition imposing additional tax on value and global income tax shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Gap evidence 8-1 through 5, Gap evidence 9-1 through 3, Gap evidence 10-1 through 3, and Gap evidence 10-3, which are not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion as evidence submitted additionally at the trial court, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the 5th judgment No. 18th judgment as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

"A judgment of conviction was rendered in the appellate court, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on May 22, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive."

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.