The instant disposition imposing penalty tax on the Plaintiff is lawful.

The Plaintiff’s income is justifiable to regard the total amount transferred from the instant company to the account under the name of Loo and Kimo as the Plaintiff’s income, and the circumstances that the tax agent lost the taxation data received from the taxpayer or made a false report at will do not constitute justifiable grounds to exempt the penalty tax.

Article 47-2 (Additional Tax on Non-Filing)

2016Nu7539 Invalidity of a disposition imposing additional tax

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap9068 Decided November 8, 2016

May 17, 2017

June 21, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. On February 1, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that each disposition of imposition of KRW 30,019,578, global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff for the year 2009, KRW 104,626,677, KRW 147,877,925, and KRW 73,72,166, for the year 2010.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on the instant case is as follows. The court's reasoning is as follows.

The reasoning of 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 dismissal or addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion and addition of the judgment, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. Parts to be removed or added;

up to the first place of section 20 from the first to the second place of section 20 shall be as follows:

“Around October 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the instant company for business (business) and subsequently the instant Association.

“Around 3% of the total sales amount) was transferred to an account in the name of UCC, KimD, and there was no contractual relationship between the instant company and UCC, and KimD, and KimD did not have any position or duties granted by the instant company.”

After the 4th 16th "whether it is reduced or not," the plaintiff submitted the books at the time of filing the tax return in 2011 and 2012, that even if KimD did not directly pay the general income tax but managed exclusively through the tax agent, this does not change its legal evaluation since it was delegated by the plaintiff, and that it does not change its legal evaluation.

money transaction, house-related expenses, and office expenses are stated as business-related expenses, and the expenses are deducted as necessary expenses."

3. Additional judgment;

A. The plaintiff actually worked for KimD as the head of the business office in the company of this case.

In addition, the company alleged that it was paid the allowance from the company of this case to the account in the name of KimD. However, each of the evidence Nos. 3 through 7 (including each number) corresponding thereto is not believed, and it is not sufficient to recognize the evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff disbursed money that the Plaintiff and KimDD paid from the instant company to the account in the name of KimD as various business expenses, such as tax reporting and accounting affairs, in relation to the amount of money.

Since the company of this case agreed to pay the remainder of the funds deposited in the account in the name of KimD, the company of this case should be deemed to have paid the personnel expenses (payment) to KimD. This asserts that the plaintiff should be deducted as necessary expenses in calculating the plaintiff's income.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that while submitting the documents related to the tax return at the global income tax return return in 2011 and 2012, the tax agent erroneously stated some of the expenses unrelated to the actual duties as necessary expenses, the rest of the expenses constitutes the expenses disbursed in relation to the actual duties, but all of the expenses are excluded from the necessary expenses.

In light of the above, unless there is any evidence to prove that there was a separate expense corresponding to the omitted income when making a tax disposition with respect to the omitted income by the on-site investigation decision, the total amount of such income shall be added to the income amount, and as to the existence of necessary expenses corresponding to the omitted income, the taxpayer shall assert and prove (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du4399, Mar. 11, 2003; 2006Du9535, Jan. 31, 2008). The plaintiff did not submit evidence to prove that the plaintiff paid the benefits to KimD with the allowances received from the company of this case or paid the actual expenses related to the business, and therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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.