Suwon District Court-2017-Guhap6768 ( October 17, 2018)

Cho-2016-China-4369 ( May 19, 2017)

In addition to the circumstances showing the intention of active concealment, it can be recognized that the imposition and collection of taxes may be impossible or remarkably difficult.

In addition to circumstances showing the intention of active concealment, such as non-declaration or underreporting of taxable objects and intentionally failing to enter revenues, sales, etc. in books, false entry in books, and repeated use of multiple borrowed accounts, etc., it can be recognized that the imposition and collection of taxes is impossible or remarkably difficult.

Article 47-3 of the National Tax Basic Act

2018-Nu 35058 Global income and revocation of disposition

AA

o Head of the tax office

8.06.15

2018.07.20

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition on August 4, 2016 exceeds KRW 18,697,002 among the disposition on imposition of global income tax of KRW 74,788,010 against the Plaintiff in 2013, and the disposition on imposition of KRW 384,135,921, which exceeds KRW 96,03,980, among the disposition on imposition of global income tax of KRW 384,135,921, shall be revoked, respectively.

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

The reason for this judgment is that of the first instance court, except for the reasons for the second instance court's judgment with the exception of the following contents:

For the same reason, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited.

○ 2 pages 17 " August 8, 2016" shall be " August 4, 2016".

○ 3rd page 13 "Cooperatives" are as follows: "Cooperatives in this case".

○ 7th 6th 6th 7th 7th 7th "it constitutes criminal breach of trust."

Even if not, it is said that it constitutes an act that damages trust in AA development.

○ 7 side 8 side 7 side 8 side 1 as follows.

5 The Plaintiff’s services related to construction work management, etc. to the instant subcontractor.

B. The purport that the Plaintiff received the instant income in return for the provision of the service

However, the Plaintiff received the instant income from the instant collaborative entity only in cash.

The Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice on the income amount of this case to the Plaintiff.

Considering that evidence Nos. 8 through 12, the Plaintiff’s assertion alone is acknowledged.

In short, there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, 6. Furthermore, the contents of the Plaintiff’s above assertion

In practice, even though the Plaintiff did not have any difficulty in filing a income tax return on the income amount of this case, the Plaintiff omitted an income tax return thereon (as alleged by the Plaintiff).

(1) If it is difficult to determine the legal nature of income arising from the service provided, such

It is not easy to accept the omission of the income tax return only with the determination, and on the other hand, the plaintiff was 2015.

9.2. received in 2013 and 2014, much earlier than the Seoul Central District Court, as it was prosecuted;

Income tax return on the part of the plaintiff is separate for transfer, regardless of the criminal trial of the plaintiff

7) The prosecutor did not have any other problem. 7) The fact that the plaintiff was suspected of evading income tax on the income amount in this case on the ground of the lack of evidence (Evidence 7) but the administrative judgment does not necessarily have to be bound by the prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition facts, but can be recognized as opposing facts by free evaluation by evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu493, Oct. 26, 1987).

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered per Disposition.

The decision shall be rendered as above.