Seocho 208west 1322 ( December 11, 2008)

Appropriateness of the estimated research method of book publishing business;

Considering that the actual return income ratio of the book publishing business exceeds 25% to 40%, the standard return income ratio of the book publishing business is too low to 4.1%, and disposition determined based on the estimated survey is legitimate.

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

Article 80 (Determination and Correction of former Income Tax Act)

Article 143 (Estimated Decision and Revision)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 1,494,510,176 on May 2, 2007 against the Plaintiff was revoked in excess of KRW 308,443,298.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 원고의 영업 : 1998. 1. 21.부터 이종사촌인 박☆☆ 명의로 사업자등록을 마치고 ★★출판사(이하 '소외 출판사')를 운영

B. The Plaintiff’s global income tax return for the year 2001

(1) Original return ( May 31, 2002)

(A) The details reported under the name of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the First Report").

○ Income subject to reporting: Business income and other real estate rental income (hereinafter referred to as "other business income by adding up two incomes) operated by the Plaintiff.

○ Details of the report

(B) The details reported in the name of Park Dong-won in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "the second report").

○ Income subject to Report: Non-party publishing company’s business income (hereinafter referred to as “the business income of this case”).

○ Details of the report

(2) A revised report on the second report in the name of Park Dong-won in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "third report") (hereinafter referred to as "third report")

(A) Grounds for correction: Non-party publishing company's omission in sales [the omission in sales of the non-party publishing company's non-party 201's omission in sales ("the book of this case" hereinafter]]

(b) Amount omitted: 3,879,200,000 won;

(C) Declarations

(d) Additional declarations and payments

2,663, 598, 978 - 299,472,760 won (amount reported and paid) =2,364,126,218 won

(c) Tax investigation into the external publishing company of the director of Seoul Regional Tax Office;

(1) Survey time: March 7, 2007

(2) Survey Results

(A) The Plaintiff is the actual business owner of the outdoor publishing company, and the taxpayer and the Do governor of Park-dong are the nominal lender.

(B) Non-party publishing company's gross income in 2001: 11,697,053,682 won in addition to 3,369,167,194 won in total sales.

(3) Estimation and determination of the Plaintiff’s instant case and other business income in 2001

(A) Estimated reasons: Loss of account books and documentary evidence of the non-party publishing company's business income in 2001

(B) Estimated income ratio: Income ratio at the second declaration by the publishing company

(C) Calculation: 24.6% (=1,094,172,736 won/4,448,686,488)

D. Defendant’s correction and notification of global income tax on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(1) Date of disposal: May 2, 2007

(2) Correction details

(3) Correction and notification amount: 2/3 of the title in the name of Park Young-ri, Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be deemed to be the Plaintiff’s report.

(a) Total amount of return;

33,045,011 (Report 1 on Other Business Income) + 2,663,598,978 (Return Revised Return on Business Income of this case) = 2,696,643,989

(b) Amount of final tax: 1,494,510,176 won;

(c) Refund: 1,202,133,813 won ( =2,696,643,989 - 1,494,510,176)

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The assertion

(1) According to Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, taxpayers of outdoor publishing companies shall be the Plaintiff.

(2) The Plaintiff reported 2 and 3 as a producer of the outdoor publishing company.

(3) The Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff filed a third return, and determined the refund after having paid the third return tax amount as the tax amount paid at the time of the instant disposition.

(4) Ultimately, the instant disposition is a decision to reduce the third declaration.

(5) The instant disposition is not subject to an appeal litigation, insofar as the portion not reduced was finalized under Article 22-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus a request for correction is filed and the disposition rejecting correction is not contested.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, the instant disposition is a disposition to increase or correct the return filed by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant disposition is a decision to reduce the return filed by the Plaintiff is rejected.

(1) According to Article 80 (1) of the former Income Tax Act, when a person liable to make a final return on a tax base fails to do so, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment determines the tax base and the amount of tax for the pertinent year, and the person liable to make a report on the

(2) Even if the Plaintiff actually paid income tax after filing returns 2 and 3 on the business income of this case, it is nothing more than a factual act for filing and paying a return, and as long as Nonparty 2 and 3 reported and paid in the name of the Do governor in the name of the external business entity of the Do governor, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have fulfilled his obligation to report and pay income tax on the business income of this case.

(3) According to Article 80 (2) of the former Income Tax Act, when a person who made a final return on a tax base has any omission or error in the return, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall correct the tax base and tax amount of the pertinent resident for the pertinent year, and the person

(4) Since the reporter and payer of the report Nos. 2 and 3 are the Do governor, the instant disposition, which is a corrective disposition against the Plaintiff, shall not be deemed to be a corrective disposition for reduction of the report No. 3.

(5) In the instant disposition, the Defendant, as the already paid tax amount, deducted the Plaintiff’s tax amount of return 2, 3, and 100 from the Plaintiff’s tax amount of return 1, the Plaintiff’s tax amount of return 2, 3, and 100. However, the instant disposition cannot be said to have been corrected for the reduction of the amount of

3. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

(a) The plaintiff's assertion (the method of estimatingd decision is erroneous);

(1) Article 143 (3) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17032 of Dec. 29, 2000) is not applicable since the account books and other documentary evidence are not destroyed due to natural disasters or force majeure.

(2) Since there was no fact that the Plaintiff filed a return on the business income of the instant case, the third return income ratio does not amount to the return on the Plaintiff’s own income ratio.

(3) A disposition to state the purport of the claim that exceeds the amount of tax to which the standard income rate (4.1%) applies is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On January 21, 1998, the publishing company closed its business on December 31, 2001.

(2) (Around January 1998, the Plaintiff, who operated the research institute for knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife,

(3) 박☆☆은소외출판사운영에는전혀관여하지않았고그와관련하여원고로부터아무런대가를받지않았으며,2002. 3. 11.부터서울마포구◆◆동309-5에서수경출판사를운영하였다.

(4) 원고는 소외 출판사 외에도 ◎◎교육입시연구원, 도서출판 ◇◇원 및 (주)★★미디어, (주)★★출판사를 운영한다.

(5) The estimation method applied by the Defendant at the time of the instant disposition is the application method of the “income rate for final return of tax base reported” under the proviso of Article 143(3)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “the estimation method of this case”).

(6) The instant book produced and sold by Nonparty Publication Co., Ltd. is an accelerator whose total of eight tickets were published by 2001 and sold more than 10 million copies.

(7) 소외 출판사가 2001. 12. 31. 폐업한 후 원고가 그 무렵 설립한 (주)★★출판사 가 계속해서 이 사건 도서를 제작ㆍ판매하고 있다.

(8) Reporting income ratio

(A) Non-party publishing company (the business income in the case of 2001)

○ Report 2: 24.6% 0 : 59.7%

(나) (주)★★출판사

○ 2002: 39.8% (42.9% for a determined income rate through a tax audit)

○ 2003: 31.6% (37.1%)

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

(d) Determination (whether the method of estimating this case is appropriate);

(1) Legal doctrine (Supreme Court Decision 81Nu295 delivered on April 10, 1984)

The estimated taxation should be reasonable and reasonable so that its methods and contents can reflect the actual income amount close to the truth, and the burden of proving the legitimacy and feasibility of the estimated taxation is borne by the tax authority.

(2) In full view of the following circumstances, the method of estimating the instant case is lawful as it is reasonable and reasonable.

(A) In applying Article 143(3)(1) through (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act with respect to the method of estimated survey, it shall not be deemed as listed in the order of priority, and any of the methods and contents thereof may reflect the amount of income near the truth.

(나) 원고가 운영한 소외 출판사와 (주)★★출판사는 베스트셀러인 이 사건 도서를 제작ㆍ판매함으로써 그 사업소득 신고소득률이 25% 내지 40%에 이르는 등 동일업종의 다른 사업자에 비하여 상당히 높은 수준의 소득을 올리고 있다.

(C) The standard income ratio for the non-party publishing company is 4.1%, and is too low compared to the above reported income ratio.

(D) It is difficult to deem that there was an omission or error in the details of the report, as long as the Plaintiff voluntarily performed the act of filing the report on the business income of this case.

(E) It is reasonable to view the method of estimating the instant case not only as listed in the Income Tax Act but also as falling under “other methods deemed reasonable by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service” under Article 143(3)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax

(3) Sub-determination: The instant disposition is lawful.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed because there is no ground for appeal.