ELLD Co., Ltd and three others (Law Firm Soho-ho, Attorney Lee Chang-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Director of the District Office

July 19, 2011

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

On June 11, 2010, the Defendant: (a) designated Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 3, and Plaintiff 4 as the secondary taxpayer of the Plaintiff ELD Co., Ltd. on July 16, 2010; and (b) revoked both the imposition of each of the value-added tax and the corporate tax in the separate disposition No. 2, 3, and 4 against the said Plaintiffs on the same day.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Return and payment of value-added taxes and corporate tax;

(1) In 207, 2007, 2007, and 1, 2008, and 2007 and corporate tax for each business year of 2008, Plaintiff ELD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd”) deducted the value of supply on the purchase tax invoice received from Sung Jinnex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Sung Jinex”) as an input tax amount and included in the deductible expenses.

Value-added tax (units: Won, 207, 2007, 2007, 980,691, 907, 9685, 228, 176, 711, 000, 949, 477, 135 176, 71, 711, 000, 1300, 207, 207, 2008, 2008, 2007, 2000

B. The Plaintiff Company received purchase tax invoices of KRW 7 million from Nonparty 1, who operates ○○ Construction, and included them in the deductible expenses after deducting them as input tax amounts at the time of return and payment of corporate tax in 2007 and in the business year of 2007.

(b) Value-added tax and corporate tax correction and notification;

(1) On June 11, 2010, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of the value-added tax and the corporate tax against the Plaintiff Company as stated in the following table on the purchase tax invoice received by the Plaintiff Company from Sungjin Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the first disposition of this case”) by deeming that the purchase tax invoice received by Nonparty 1 constitutes a disguised purchase or a disguised purchase, and the purchase tax invoice received by Nonparty 1 as listed in the table below, should be deducted from the input tax amount in the case of a disguised purchase, and that the processing purchase should not be deducted from the input tax amount, but should not be included in the loss.

Table (units: : 866,091, 953, 737 176, 711, 996, 539, 114,60, 15,047 129,647 aggregate of 980,691, 968,784 176,7112,126,186 on January 2, 2007

D. The Plaintiff Company did not pay the above value-added tax and corporate tax by the due date. On July 16, 2010, the Defendant designated Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 3, and Plaintiff 4 as the oligopolistic shareholder of the Plaintiff Company and notified the said Plaintiffs of the value-added tax and corporate tax, as stated in No. 2, 3, and 4, in order of the shares of the Plaintiff Company during the taxable period of the above value-added tax and corporate tax (hereinafter “the second disposition”).

(c) Request for adjudication;

The Plaintiff Company filed a petition for trial with the Tax Tribunal for the revocation of the first disposition of the instant case (hereinafter “Tax Tribunal”) but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said petition on December 23, 2010.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul 4-5, Eul 1-5, Eul 2-1-5, Eul 4-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

Although Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 asserted as indicated in the following 3. A., and sought revocation of the second disposition of this case, the said Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit without going through the pre-trial procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, the said Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Determination

Article 56(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “Any administrative litigation against any illegal disposition prescribed in Article 55 shall not be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon pursuant to this Act, notwithstanding the main sentence of Article 18(1), Article 18(2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act.” However, in the case of tax administration, two or more administrative dispositions for the same purpose are carried out in the course of each phase and development, and are related to each other, and the tax authority has changed the tax disposition subject to such disposition while a lawsuit is pending, and the same administrative disposition is jointly related to each other. In the case where multiple persons are liable to pay the same obligation by the same administrative disposition, one of the taxpayers and the National Tax Tribunal has granted an opportunity to re-determine the basic and legal issues of the preceding disposition, and in addition, if there are justifiable grounds, such as where the taxpayer seems to be harsh to undergo the procedure of the preceding trial, it shall be deemed that the taxpayer may file an administrative litigation without going through the procedure of the preceding trial (see, e.g., 2001).4).

In light of these legal principles, the second disposition of this case ordered the above plaintiffs, who are oligopolistic shareholders of the plaintiff company, to pay the tax amount according to their respective shareholding ratio as the plaintiff company did not pay the notified tax amount within the payment period even after receiving the first disposition of this case. The grounds for the first disposition of this case are the same as the grounds for the first disposition of this case. The plaintiff company requested cancellation of the first disposition of this case and provided an opportunity for the Tax Tribunal to re-determine the legitimacy of the first disposition of this case. Even if the above plaintiffs filed a request for a trial, it cannot be determined differently by the Tax Tribunal, and it does not dispute that the above plaintiffs are oligopolistic shareholders of the plaintiff company. In light of the fact that the above plaintiffs did not dispute about the fact that they are oligopolistic shareholders of the plaintiff company, the second disposition of this case must be subject to the prior trial procedure of seeking cancellation of the second disposition of this case, etc. of the second disposition of this case. The defendant'

3. Whether the first and second dispositions of this case are legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Pursuant to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the Plaintiff Company is an independent company separate from the Plaintiff Company, and the transaction between the Plaintiff Company and the Jinzex is a normal transaction, not a disguised or fictitious transaction.

B. The Plaintiff Company received the purchase tax invoice from Nonparty 1 with the introduction of Nonparty 9, and paid 7 million won for the interior works and received the purchase tax invoice.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the Plaintiff Company is a disguised business

In addition to the purport of the argument stated in Gap 5, 6, 8, 12, Eul 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11, the whole purport of the pleading was added to the non-party 5, 6, 8, and 11, the non-party 5 was the director from November 29, 2005 to March 21, 2007, and the non-party 6 was the director from March 21, 2007 to July 23, 2007, and the non-party 7 was the non-party 1's employee's name and the non-party 2's employee's name and the non-party 1's employee's name and the non-party 2's employee's name and the non-party 3's employee's name and the non-party 2's employee's personal account were the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's personal account.

In light of the following facts revealed in the above facts: (a) the opening and withdrawal of the bank account in the name of the bank in Korea; (b) the deposit account in Korea; (c) the deposit account in the bank account in Korea; (d) the withdrawal and method of use of the check in Nonparty 4; (e) the statement in the investigation process in Nonparty 7; and (d) the sexual call workplace and warehouse status, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the sexual call is merely a disguised company of the Plaintiff; and (e) contrary thereto, it is difficult to believe that each statement in the evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, 11, 12, 14, and 18 was made. The first and second dispositions in this regard are lawful; and (e) the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the premise that the sexual call is independent of the Plaintiff company is not reasonable.

B. Whether the transaction with Nonparty 1 constitutes a normal transaction

According to Eul evidence No. 11 and Eul evidence No. 15, on March 19, 2010, when a tax investigation was conducted with respect to the plaintiff company, the non-party 1 entered into a contract for construction and construction with the non-party 1, who was registered at the second time of 2007, and the tax invoice was issued with the business number (ELD Co., Ltd.) which was brought by the plaintiff 1. The non-party 2, who was not the plaintiff company, remitted five million won to the non-party 1, who was the wife of the non-party 9, who was not the non-party 1, and the non-party 11 remitted three million won to the above non-party 10 on August 29, 2007; the non-party 1 prepared a tax invoice with respect to the non-party 1, who was the non-party 1, and it is difficult to view that the non-party 1 entered into a contract with the plaintiff company and the non-party 1, who was the non-party 1, in fact.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Judge)