Where the interest on the provisional payment is omitted in the account book, the disposal of income;

If any person has paid provisional payments under any name, and if no evidence is presented, the person with interest on the recognition of provisional payments shall be deemed to have been omitted from sales recorded in the book, and the attribution is unclear and disposed of as bonus to the representative.

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

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 413,918,760 on December 3, 2007, exceeding KRW 197,587,082, among the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 413,918,760 on the Plaintiff for the year 2003, shall be revoked, and the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 38,639,7

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 5,02,960, global income tax of KRW 413,918,760, global income tax of KRW 413,918,760, and global income tax of KRW 38,639,750, which reverts to the Plaintiff on December 3, 2007, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 14, 1997 to April 6, 2004, the Plaintiff worked as the representative director of the BB Construction Industry (hereinafter “BB Construction”) for the purpose of building and civil engineering work. The Seoul Regional Tax Office, from April 19, 2006 to July 28, 2005, conducted an integrated investigation into BB Construction with respect to corporate entrepreneurs from April 19, 2006 to 205, omitted BB Construction from 15,289,982 to 206, to 30,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 won, 206,000,000,00.

B. On the other hand, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office issued a bonus disposition of KRW 1,077,317,482, which was additionally added to gross income in the year 2002 or 2004 by BBB Construction in the year of 26,057,408,984, but whose attribution is unclear, and notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income on September 4, 2006, and notified the Defendant of the change in the amount of income as follows.

C. On December 3, 2007, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff the global income tax of KRW 5,002,960, global income tax of KRW 413,918,760, global income tax of KRW 38,639,750, and global income tax of KRW 38,639,750 for the year 2003, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On January 16, 2008, the Plaintiff appealed to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on May 30, 2008, and filed the instant lawsuit on August 13, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 through 4, 6, 7, 10, 11 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The Plaintiff did not accurately know about the recognition of the provisional payment by its officers and employees of KRW 15,289,982, and did not have accrued to the Plaintiff.

② Since around 2002, BB Construction contracted for the construction of the Potent wastewater treatment plant and leased a key period in the process of directly managing the part of the Potent treatment plant construction. The fact that the mid-term owner received a tax invoice from a third party on data because he/she did not register his/her business and paid mid-term rent itself is that the relevant amount was leaked or reverted to the Plaintiff.

③ BB Construction established a local branch office in order to receive the agricultural waterway dam construction ordered by the Government of the Philippines, and paid KRW 459,000,000 to the Republic of the Philippines in terms of construction performance expenses. However, it became clear that the said amount was obtained by fraud from the human nature of the Republic of the Philippines, which was disbursed for the purpose of obtaining permission from the Republic of Korea. Therefore, as long as it was spent for the purpose of obtaining permission from the Republic of Korea, it cannot be deemed that the said amount was leaked out of the Republic of Korea or

④ Of the portion of KRW 600,000,000, 200,000, out of the provisional payment or deposit 600,000,000, it was paid to Yellow City as a reward for the execution of the reclamation work only in Asia, implemented by the Yellow Group (in fact, it was disposed of as a loan since it was not returned from Yellow City, even though it was not performed by several weeks), 400,000,00,000, which was paid to the said Yellow City under the pretext of the opening of the number of residential address of the apartment construction works in Busan EE-dong, Busan, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it was out of the company or that it was reverted to the Plaintiff, as long as it was obvious for the person to whom it was reverted.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Where a corporation fails to record its sales in the account book or appropriates the cost of processing in the account book, the profit of the corporation equivalent to the omitted sales or the cost of processing shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the company, barring any special circumstance. In such cases, the special circumstance that the total amount is not leaked out of the company shall be proved by the corporation asserting it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du434, Apr. 13, 2001). If the cost of processing is leaked out of the company and its attribution is unclear, it shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative of the corporation under Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and shall

2) Judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 5 and 6, BB Construction shall pay 262,00,000 won to the representative director, officers, and employees five times in the account book, and in 2003, it may be recognized that 341,50,000 won, including the amount carried over in the previous year, was paid once through 11 times, including the amount carried over in the previous year, and that the above amount did not include the interest rate for the recognition of the above amount during the period until the recovery was made. The BBB case theory did not present the source of the disbursement and the evidence, the above interest rate for the recognition of the provisional payment shall be deemed to have not been included in the account book and its attribution is unclear. Thus, the tax office's determination of the provisional payment amount for the business year 2002,630,311, and the representative director's recognition of the provisional payment amount for the business year 2003, and the Plaintiff's determination of the global income amount for the total amount of 12,65,29,29,28.28.

3) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 7, BB Construction, while performing construction works at the YA during the period of the value added tax on January 2002, based on purchase tax invoices of KRW 8,050,000, the total value of supply received from Youngcheon Construction Co., Ltd. during the period of the 2002 value added tax, can be recognized as having been verified as data by the tax authorities. However, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not submit evidence to prove that the above tax invoice was actually paid while leasing a key period from a third party, 8,855,000, including value added tax, shall be deemed as having been processed, and the disposition of this case which is recognized as having been done to the plaintiff, the representative director of the company, as the representative director of the company, is justifiable. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

According to the statement in Eul evidence 8 BB Construction: (a) on May 2, 2002, 202, 459,000,000 won was appropriated as provisional payment on the account books for the establishment expenses of overseas branch offices outside the Philippines; and (b) on the same day, 5,827,500 US dollars was remitted to the account in the name of CC Construction Industry established at Mauma branch of the Korea Exchange Bank; and (c) on the same day, 51,85,253 won was partly settled for the establishment expenses of overseas branch offices outside the Republic of Korea; (d) on October 31, 2003, the remaining 401,317,247 won was replaced for the operation expenses of branch offices outside the Republic of Korea; and (e) on December 31, 2003, the Plaintiff’s allegation that the above 50,000 US dollars was insufficient for the Government to recognize the above 50,000 KR's testimony or 2.

5) Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 3 and 4, BB Construction filed a complaint with the Yellow City as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud). In the above case, on May 17, 2005, the legal counsel of the Yellow City may order the construction of sewage treatment plant at the time of the strike on May 17, 2004 and now the construction is in progress. Although the contingent fees for the above contracts were not yet received, the above payments were received from the BBB on June 16, 2003 to offset the successful fees of KRW 200,000,000,000 from the above 0,000,000,000,0000 won was paid to the Plaintiff as well as 0,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00.

6) Calculation of a legitimate tax amount;

Therefore, the justifiable tax amount calculated by deducting KRW 600,000,000 from the global income amount of global income tax on global income for the year 2003 and 2004 ( KRW 500,000,000 from the global income amount of global income tax on global income for the year 2003, and KRW 100,000,000 from the global income amount of global income for the year 2004) shall be subject to the imposition of global income tax on global income for the year 203, as shown in the separate sheet of calculation of the justifiable tax amount, as shown in the annexed sheet of global income tax for the year 2003, the amount exceeding KRW 197,587,00,00 for the global income tax on global income for the year 203, and the amount exceeding KRW 38,639,750 for the global income tax on global income for the year 204 shall be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.