In the absence of special circumstances, omission in sales of a corporation shall be deemed to have been discharged out of the company.

Where a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite the fact of sales, the total amount omitted from sales shall be deemed leaked to a third party at the time of sales, except in extenuating circumstances. In such cases, the special circumstance that the omission in sales is not leaked to a third party shall be verified by the corporation asserting such omission.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

Suwon District Court 2016Guhap6552, revocation, etc. of notice of change in income amount

AA

00. Head of tax office

on October 30, 2017

on October 2016 20

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim against the defendants are dismissed, respectively.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Main Claim

1. As to each income amount listed in attached Form 1, which Defendant 00 director of the tax office attached to the Plaintiff on December 4, 2014:

(a) confirm that each notice of change in the amount of income in the year 2007 and 2008 is invalid;

(b) revoke each notice of change in income amount in the year 209, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.

2. As to the income tax (including additional tax) that Defendant 00 director of the tax office paid to the Plaintiff on May 25, 2016 among each withholding set out in the separate sheet of disposition:

(a) identify that the withholding of each income tax (including additional taxes) on the year 2007 and 2008 for the year 207; and

(b)to revoke the withholding of each income tax (including additional taxes) on the year 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 of the year to which it belongs;

3. As to the withholding of local income tax (including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on May 11, 2016 by the head of 00 head of Gun among the withholdings listed in the separate sheet of disposition:

(a) identify that the withholding of each local income tax (including additional tax) on the year 2007 and 2008 for the year 207;

(b) revoke the withholding of each local income tax (including additional taxes) for the year 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 of the year to which it belongs;

Preliminary Claim 1)

1) Of the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim, the part seeking notice of change in the amount of income for the period from 2009 to 2013, each income tax withholding disposition, and each local income tax withholding disposition, cannot be determined separately as the primary claim.

1. As to each income amount listed in the separate sheet of income that Defendant 00 director of the tax office rendered to the Plaintiff on December 4, 2014, the notice of changes in the income amount in the business year 2007 and 2008 shall be revoked.

2. Among the withholding taxes listed in the separate sheet of disposition, each of the local income tax (including additional tax) for the year 2007 to which Defendant 00 director of the tax office reverted to the Plaintiff on May 25, 2016, the withholding of each income tax (including additional tax) for the year 2008 that Defendant 00 head of the tax office reverted to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2016, and the withholding of each local income tax for the year 2007 to which Defendant 00 head of the tax office reverted to the Plaintiff on May

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 10, 1998, the Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of importing, selling, and maintaining motor vehicles from 00,000 e.g., Gyeonggi-gun 00 to 00, and SS is a person who served as the Plaintiff’s representative director from October 25, 2006 to October 25, 2009, and from March 18, 2010 to January 27, 2014. The JJ is a person employed and worked as the Plaintiff’s accounting officer on February 1, 2004.

B. The shareholders status from 2007 to 2013 are as follows.

Name of shareholders

Basic Number of Stocks

The number of horse shares;

Ratio of Shares

SS

6,600

6,600

33%

Yellow 00

8,000

8,000

40%

Kim 00

3,400

3,400

17%

king00

2,000

2,000

10%

guidance.

20,000

20,000

100%

C. From September 15, 2014 to October 2, 2014, Defendant 00: (a) conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff; and (b) omitted reporting of KRW 789,674,530 deposited in the account under the name of KK (hereinafter “instant account”) from 2007 to 2013; and (c) as indicated in the [Attachment List of Income”, Defendant 00 to 64,480,320 and 506,498,090, totaling KRW 64,480,320 and KRW 506,770,000,000 (=64,480,320, +506,506,70,0000 + 506,017,707,700,000) were the issues at issue at the time of disposal; and (d) the issue at issue at issue at issue at 604,7570,7070.7.

D. Meanwhile, on December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff’s shareholders filed a complaint with SS and JJ on the ground that they embezzled the Plaintiff’s funds to the 00 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 013 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 014 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 2014 branch offices of the 2015 branch offices of the JJ number of the 2014 branch offices of the 014 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 00 branch offices of the 2014 branch offices of

Criminal facts

SS

Type 1. Facts of crimes

Second Crime Facts

Type 3 Facts of crimes

Embezzlement KRW 96,226,063 from May 20, 2008 to October 21, 2013 by using it in the settlement, such as S’s insurance premium, credit card payment, etc.

Embezzlement 127,028,010 won of an insurance refund under the name of the Plaintiff on December 19, 2008

Embezzlement the proceeds of the automobile repair in collusion with the due diligence as follows:

JJ

Embezzlement the amount of repair equivalent to KRW 364,624,00 in total over 612 times until October 25, 2013, as of January 9, 2007

E. On December 8, 2014, 00 District Court 00 Branch rendered a sentence of 10 months to the JJ as guilty of the facts constituting a crime against the JJ, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 16, 2014.

F. Meanwhile, on September 7, 2015, 00 district court 00 branch court rendered a judgment of not guilty of the facts of the first crime among the facts stated in the above table against SS, which were KRW 3 million, KRW 2, and KRW 3,000,000, and the facts of the second and third crimes. However, on March 25, 2016, the appellate court rendered a judgment of not guilty on all of the facts of the crime to SS (Case No. 00 district court 2015No000) and on October 13, 2016, the above judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter referred to as “related criminal cases”) through the Supreme Court’s final appeal (Case No. 00 district court 2016Do000).

G. On January 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition against Defendant 00 Head of the Tax Office, but the objection was dismissed on March 2, 2015, and on March 30, 2015, the Tax Tribunal filed an appeal against the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition. On March 23, 2016, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to order the head of the tax office to conduct a reinvestigation on the grounds that the amount of income disposal for SS is unclear, and the actual person to whom the income disposition amount is to be attributed and the ownership of SS is unclear (hereinafter referred to as “decision to conduct a reinvestigation”).

H. On May 12, 2016, Defendant 00 director of the tax office notified the Plaintiff of the result that each of the changes in income amount, such as the instant disposition, was justifiable, and the said notification reached the Plaintiff around that time.

I. Accordingly, on May 25, 2016, the head of the tax office, as indicated in the separate sheet of disposition, withheld each income tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) from the Plaintiff on May 25, 2016, and the head of the 00 Gun withheld each local income tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) from the Plaintiff on May 11, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in the court, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including provisional number, hereinafter the same), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. As to each notice of change in income amount on the year 2007 and 2008, each income tax withholding, and each local income tax withholding on the year 2007

1) Among the instant dispositions, each of the notice of change in income amount in 2007 and 2008 (hereinafter “prior disposition”) was issued after the expiration of the exclusion period of income tax for SS as the original taxpayer in 2007 and the exclusion period of income tax for the portion reverted in 2008.

2) Although the prior disposition of this case was conducted on the premise that the SS was out of the company, in light of the results of the relevant criminal case, SS cannot be deemed as embezzled and divulged out of the company. In the case of the amount of the issue of the SS, it is reasonable to view that the other party to whom it belongs is the J not SS but J in the case of the remaining issue amount. At least, Defendant 00 director of the tax office, the disposition agency, has the duty to clearly prove the other party to whom the issue belongs and the amount thereof, but such proof cannot be deemed as

3) In addition, on May 12, 2016, the chief of the tax office notified the Plaintiff of the result that the instant disposition was justifiable without sufficient investigation as to the party to whom the key amount is attributed and the amount thereof. This goes against the purport of the re-investigation decision, as well as violates the binding force of the decision of the Tax Tribunal.

4) Therefore, the prior disposition of this case is serious and clear, and thus null and void or should be revoked as it is preliminaryly unlawful, and so long as the prior disposition should be invalidated or revoked, the Plaintiff is not liable to pay income tax or local income tax to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the prior disposition of this case, each income tax withholding for 2007, and 208, and each local income tax withholding for 2008.

B. The remainder of each disposition

1) Of the instant dispositions, any defect that exists in each of the notice of change in the amount of income in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 (hereinafter “instant subsequent disposition”) is as described in subparagraph 2-A, 2, and 3.

2) Therefore, since the instant subsequent disposition is unlawful, and so long as the said subsequent disposition is revoked, the Plaintiff is not liable to pay income tax or local income tax. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks revocation as to the instant subsequent disposition, the instant subsequent disposition, the year 2009, the year 2010, the year 2011, and the year 2012, and the respective local income tax withholding for the year 2012, and the respective local income tax withholding for the year 2013.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. As to the exclusion period and argument regarding the prior disposition of this case

A. Whether it constitutes "Fraud or other unlawful act"

The legislative intent of Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same) is to extend the exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes to 10 years because it is difficult for the tax authority to find out that there is any unlawful act, such as making it difficult for him/her to find the taxation requirements of national taxes or forging any false fact, while the exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes, in principle, is five years in order to promptly determine tax-related relations, and it is difficult for him/her to exercise the imposition of national taxes. Therefore, “Fraud or other unlawful act” under Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act refers to a deceptive scheme or other unlawful act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and it does not constitute merely failure to file or falsely filing a tax return under the tax law without accompanying any other act, but it is considerably difficult to impose taxes and 215 years in addition to the active act that does not enter revenues or sales, etc.

In addition to the aforementioned facts and circumstances acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence as seen earlier, i.e., (i) corporate tax is a tax for which a taxpayer filed a tax base and the amount of tax, and (ii) the Plaintiff omitted sales of KRW 789,674,530 from 207 to 2013 by using the instant account in the name of KK, which is the borrowed account, and the Plaintiff’s period of omitting sales, and the amount is prolonged, and the Plaintiff’s omission of sales is not only less than the amount, but also the omission of sales, and repeatedly made; and (iii) KK, the nominal holder of the instant account, is a third party with no relationship with the Plaintiff’s representative director and the shareholders, and thus, the Plaintiff committed active acts that make it impossible or significantly difficult to impose and collect taxes with the intent of tax evasion. Accordingly, this constitutes “Fraud or other unlawful acts” under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

B. Former relevant legal principles

In a case where a representative of a corporation received a false tax invoice and received a false tax invoice in excess of the purchase amount on the account book and concealed income, the Supreme Court: (a) it is difficult to see that a taxpayer under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes who received a false tax invoice and received a false tax invoice and received a false tax invoice in excess of the purchase amount; and (b) it is difficult to see that the representative was made to evade the income tax to be imposed as the representative of the corporation because the representative of the corporation did not know that the person to whom the income accrued was not identified; and (c) it cannot be deemed that a taxpayer under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes who evaded national taxes by fraud or other improper means; and (d) the exclusion period for imposition of the income tax on the portion belonging to the relevant year was five years pursuant to subparagraph 3 of the same paragraph, which returned

(c) Amendment, etc. of the relevant statutes;

Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "if a taxpayer evades a national tax, obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, it shall be ten years from the date on which the national tax can be imposed." As a result of the amendment by Act No. 11124 on December 31, 201, "if a national tax is evaded, refunded or deducted by unlawful means, it shall be ten years from the date on which the income tax or corporate tax can be imposed on the amount treated pursuant to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act, if the national tax is refunded or deducted by such unlawful act, it shall be ten years from the date on which the income tax or corporate tax can be imposed (hereinafter referred to as "Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the amended Framework Act on National Taxes"). Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended Act provides that "the latter part of Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act shall apply to the first time after January 1, 2012."

Meanwhile, according to the purport of Articles 38 and 59 of the Constitution that provides for no taxation without the law, a provision imposing new tax liability or previous tax liability may be applicable only when the requirements for imposition are met after its enforcement (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du17363, Sept. 2, 201). The retroactive application of tax-related provisions that provide for new tax liability or previous aggravated tax liability is limited to cases where the taxpayer’s trust at the time of the act of realizing taxation requirements lacks reasonable grounds and there is no need for protection thereof, an exception may be established under the law only when it is inevitable to realize the more serious public interest principle or it is necessary for public welfare (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu423, Apr. 26, 1983). Furthermore, the principle that retroactive legislation only requires retroactive legislation or legal relations that has already been completed by new legislation and its application cannot be applied by the principle of no retroactive law to the extent of retroactive application of law.

D. Whether the exclusion period for imposition related to the prior disposition of this case has expired

1) According to the previous legal principles, the exclusion period applicable to the income tax liability of the source taxpayer related to the prior disposition of this case shall be five years under Article 26-2 (1) 3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. However, the amended provisions stipulate that the exclusion period of imposition of income tax, etc. on the amount disposed of under Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act shall be 10 years if the national tax evaded or refunded or deducted by unlawful act is corporate tax. As for the income tax of the source taxpayer related to the prior disposition of this case (SS) (207, 2008) was not imposed on January 1, 2012 when the main provision was enforced, five years have not yet passed (the income tax belonging to 2007 shall be rejected from May 31, 2008, which is the filing period under Article 70 (1) of the Income Tax Act until 2008, which is the expiration date of the exclusion period of imposition of income tax for the past 200 years from 2008).

2) Ultimately, the obligation to pay income tax for the year 2007 and 2008 of the source taxpayer to pay the income tax for the year 2007 and 2008 was in the state that the ten-year exclusion period as of December 14, 2014, which was the notification date of the instant prior disposition, was not much set. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part

5. As to the assertion that the issue amount of the instant disposition belongs to

(a) Relevant principles, etc.;

1) Where a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite a fact of sales, the total amount omitted from sales shall be deemed to have been leaked to a person other than the company at the time of sales, barring any special circumstance. In such cases, the special circumstance that the omission in sales is not leaked to a person other than the company shall be attested by the corporation asserting such omission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 200

2) In addition, barring any special circumstance, the act of a representative director, etc., who is the actual manager of a corporation uses the corporation’s funds from the beginning, which is not based on the premise of recovery, and thus constitutes an outflow from the company as an expenditure itself. As to special circumstances that cannot be deemed as not premised on recovery from the utilization time, the determination shall be made individually and specifically by taking into account all the circumstances, including where the intent of the representative director, etc. is identical to the intent of the corporation or where it is difficult to see that the corporate economic interest with the representative director, etc. is in fact identical, through the representative director, etc., who is the principal manager of the embezzlement, the degree of substantial status within the corporation, the degree of control over the corporation, the circumstances leading to the embezzlement, and the measures taken by the corporation after the embezzlement, etc.

3) On the other hand, where a person in a position of an employee of a corporation commits an illegal act, such as embezzlement of a corporation's funds for personal interest regardless of the corporation's business affairs, and the corporation acquires damage claims, etc. from such person, the amount equivalent to such money shall not be deemed to have been immediately disclosed from the company. Only in the case where there are circumstances such as the pertinent corporation or its actual manager's prior or ex post implied consent, and the corporation's intention not to recover the damage claims from such person, such as waiver of collection of claims, etc., it shall be deemed to have objectively expressed its intention not to recover the damage claims from the company. It shall be deemed to have been disposed of as a bonus to such person. Even if

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du9254 Decided April 9, 2004, etc.)

4) Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same) provides that "in filing a report on the corporate tax base based on the income for each business year under the provisions of Article 60, or in determining or revising the corporate tax base pursuant to the provisions of Article 66 or 69, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company, internal reserve, etc. to the person to whom it belongs as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Accordingly, Article 106 (1) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same) provides that where it is obvious that the amount included in the calculation of earnings has

5) In light of the above provisions and the legal principles, the fact that the issue amount was omitted at the time of filing a corporate tax return is not disputed between the parties, and thus, the above amount is deemed to have been leaked out of the company, barring any special circumstance, and special circumstances to deem that the issue amount was not leaked out of the company should be proved by the Plaintiff.

B. As to the SS key amount (64,480,320 won)

1) As long as a criminal judgment in an administrative litigation has become final and conclusive, the fact that it is difficult to adopt a factual determination of the above criminal judgment cannot be recognized unless there are special circumstances to deem it difficult (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du10424, Nov. 26, 1999).

2) According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, from January 2007 to October 21, 2013, from around January 201, 2013, SS was used as the funds transferred from the instant account to the national bank account in the name of SS, the plaintiff's repair cost, the plaintiff's insurance premium in the name of 00 persons in the name of SS and SS, and the credit card payment. The amount was total 96,26,063. The amount was <2,00,00,000,000, the plaintiff's shareholder and director's director's pension insurance period in the relevant criminal case; the above national bank account in the name of SS was opened and managed for the purpose of fund management as in the instant account; the plaintiff's Kim Jong-sung account deposited into the above account was stated as 00,000, 000, 000, 200, 200, 300, 000, etc.

3) Comprehensively taking account of the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the amount of SS issues (64,480,320 won) was out of the SS to the representative director, unless there is any assertion or proof by the plaintiff as to special circumstances that recognize that the amount of SS issues was partially or partly paid to SS for the purpose of preserving the benefits or distributing profits of SS, under the consent of 00, 100, 100, 00, 100, and 100, the Plaintiff’s shareholder and directors, and that the amount of SS issues was not leaked to SS, unless there is any assertion or proof by the plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that SS was out of the company to have been unfairly embezzled the amount of SS in the status of the employee of the Plaintiff. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is inconsistent with the judgment of the criminal case related to the above payment circumstances.

C. As to the remaining issues amount (506,017,770 won)

The J has embezzled the automobile repair costs, etc. worth KRW 364,624,00 in total over 612 times from January 9, 2007 to October 25, 2013; the J has embezzled the repair costs, etc.; the J has paid the repair costs to the Plaintiff during the said period in cash or embezzled the repair costs in such a way as to bring them back after being omitted in the daily balance sheet for approval; the amount of the repair costs embezzled by the JJ (excluding card fees) paid by credit card out of KRW 36,881,309; the amount paid in cash exceeds KRW 27,742,691; the amount settled by credit card; the Plaintiff’s payment in cash is 36,881,81,309; the Plaintiff’s payment in the name of the Plaintiff in the name of the Plaintiff; and the purpose of the submission of evidence No. 482 through No. 482; and the Plaintiff’s payment in the entire account No. 948-2.

According to the court below's examination, among the above 364,624,00 won embezzled by the court of Justice, KRW 336,881,309, the credit card settlement amount of KRW 336,881,30,000, the credit card settlement amount of KRW 336,881,30,000, was deposited to the above national bank account under the Plaintiff's name, not the amount deposited to the account of this case. Thus, the above 336,881,309, out of the remaining issues amount of KRW 336,881,30,000, the above 336,881,309, out of the remaining issues amount of the remaining issues, shall not be deemed to have been attributed to the court of Justice. In order to have been reverted to the court of Justice as part of the remaining issues amount of KRW 364,624,00,000, the plaintiff's assertion that the above amount of money was voluntarily deposited to the account of this case is insufficient to prove.

6. As to the assertion of binding force against the re-audit decision of this case

A. Article 80 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes only prescribes the binding force of the Tax Tribunal on the rejection, dismissal, and decision of reexamination, and does not have any provision on the decision of reexamination. In addition, the decision of reexamination constitutes a modified decision in which the agency’s intent to take part in the decision of reexamination of the matters pointed out in the relevant decision as part of the decision of reexamination on the request for a trial, etc. As such, the decision of reexamination takes effect as to the request for a trial by supplementing the contents thereof by the subsequent disposition of the agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du12514, Jun. 25, 2010). As such, it cannot be deemed that the decision of reexamination takes effect solely on the ground that the decision of reexamination takes effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du12514, Jun. 25, 201). Ultimately, the agency has a legal obligation to conduct reexamination on the matters

B. In light of such legal principles, it cannot be readily concluded that the binding force such as the rejection, dismissal, and acceptance decision of the re-audit of this case is recognized, and considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 6-4 and Nos. 6-8, the Tax Tribunal rendered a re-audit decision in the purport that on March 23, 2016, the pertinent criminal case must re-examine whether the issue amount was actually leaked on the grounds of the judgment of innocence in the relevant criminal case. Accordingly, on April 22, 2016, the head of the tax office re-examines the Plaintiff after requesting the submission of data on the judgment of the relevant criminal case against JJ, SS, and related income belonging to the issues amount, and on May 12, 2016, the fact that the Plaintiff notified the changes in the amount of income identical to the initial decision.

C. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the head of the tax office lawfully notified changes in the amount of income, and even if the re-audit decision of this case includes "the actual person to whom the income amount actually accrues and the unclear amount of attribution of 570,498,090 won, the amount of income disposition of SS," the purport of this review is to re-examine the validity of the notification of changes in amount of income by reflecting the relevant criminal case decision, and thus, even if the head of the tax office maintained the notification of changes in amount of income as a result of the re-audit of this case, it cannot be seen as contradictory to or contrary to the purport of the re-audit decision of this case.

7. Determination

A. Judgment on the main claim

1) As seen earlier, the fact that the exclusion period for the obligation to pay income tax of a person liable for the source tax (SS) related to the prior disposition of this case did not exceed the limitation period is as seen earlier. The grounds stated in the items of paragraphs 5 and 6, alleged by the Plaintiff as the defect of the prior disposition of this case, can only be found to have been examined closely, and it cannot be said that the defect is apparent. Thus, among the withholding taxes for the year 2007 to which the pertinent prior disposition of this case and the pertinent prior disposition of this case are included in the separate disposition of this case, each of the tax withholding for the Plaintiff on May 25, 2016 and the Plaintiff’s primary claim seeking nullification of the invalidity of each local income tax withheld by the head of 00 head of Gun against the Plaintiff on May 11, 2016 cannot be accepted.

2) The Plaintiff’s primary claim seeking the revocation of the instant follow-up disposition cannot be accepted as long as it cannot be acknowledged that there is any defect described in Articles 5 and 6 as alleged by the Plaintiff regarding each of the above dispositions.

3) Next, even if there is a defect in the notice of change in the amount of income, it is not succeeded to the subsequent collection disposition, as it is, unless the defect does not fall under the grounds for invalidation as a matter of course. Therefore, in a case where there is a notice of change in the amount of income, the tax authority’s liability to pay withholding income tax should be disputed in an appeal litigation against the notice of change in the amount of income which becomes final and conclusive. Unless the notice of change in the amount of income is null and void as a matter of course, an appeal litigation against the collection disposition cannot be raised (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du14439, Jan. 26, 2012). The grounds for the Plaintiff’s assertion as the defect in the subsequent disposition of income (the defect in paragraphs 5 and 6) can only be examined closely into the accurate facts, and so long as the defect cannot be seen as apparent in appearance by an appeal litigation against each of the above withholding taxes, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the amount of income tax withholding for 209 years, 2015 years, and 2015 years, respectively.

B. Determination on the conjunctive claim

The Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim seeking the cancellation of the local income tax withheld on May 25, 2016, which Defendant 00 head of the tax office rendered to the Plaintiff on May 25, 2016, among the withholding taxes for year 2007 and year 2008, based on the preceding disposition and the foregoing preceding disposition, was based on the preceding disposition, and as such, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim seeking the cancellation of the local income tax withheld on May 11, 2016 against the Plaintiff cannot be accepted, since there is any error in the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 6 as alleged by the Plaintiff against the instant preceding disposition.

8. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.