An act of preparing and submitting a false monetary lending contract, etc. to the Bank of Korea shall be subject to penalty taxes for unfair underreporting.

In order to conceal the transactions with respect to KRW 1 and 2 of this case, the Plaintiff shall prepare a false monetary lending contract and a false monetary lending contract and submit it to the Bank of Korea, underreporting the global income tax base.

Article 47-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes [Additional Tax for Unfair Underreporting]

2015Guhap5028 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

tanks 00

00. Head of tax office

July 17, 2015

August 28, 2015

1. Mau300 The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of u 3000

Cheong-gu Office

On March 1, 2014, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 46,236,300, global income tax of KRW 3000, global income tax of KRW 78,521,470 for global income tax of KRW 46,236,30, and global income tax of KRW 300209 (the date of disposition written in the complaint seems to be written by mistake).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff provided management consulting services to LAAA Co. Ltd., a representative of Hong Kong corporation, and received US$ 2,500,000 (US$ 3,179,487,000, KRW 1,421,394,000 for the original conversion amount, KRW 1,421,394,000 for the year 208, and KRW 1,758,09,000 for the year 209, as shown in the following table from November 28, 2008 to December 23, 209) from LAA.

B. In filing the final tax return on global income tax for the year 2008, the Plaintiff reported the instant KRW 1, and the instant KRW 2, upon filing the final tax return on global income tax for the year 2009, the Plaintiff reported the instant KRW 2, except for each income amount

C. From August 30, 2011 to October 22, 2011, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant tax investigation”). As a result, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff omitted the amount of KRW 1 and 2 from the amount of global income tax on global income tax for 2008 and 209, and notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of KRW 1 and 2 of the instant global income tax for 2008 as KRW 702,568,795, and the total amount of the global income tax for 2009 as global income tax for 854,68,431 won without deducting necessary expenses.

D. Since then, the Defendant revised the global income tax for the year 2008 and the year 2009, and subsequently notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of global income tax for the year 2008 as KRW 904,883,578, and the total amount of global income tax for the year 2009 as KRW 873,257,086.

E. On February 29, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted to deduct necessary expenses and to calculate the amount of income by estimation, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 29, 2012. On September 26, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “the tax base and tax amount should be corrected by estimating the amount of income by assessing the amount of income by estimation.” Accordingly, the Defendant corrected and notified the amount of 467,001,122 out of the total amount of global income tax assessed for the year 2008, by reducing the amount of 294,09,298 out of the total amount of global income tax assessed for the year 2009, the total amount of global income tax assessed for the year 2008 as KRW 437,882,456, and the total amount of global income tax assessed for the year 2009 as KRW 579,247,7888.

F. After the correction of the above reduction, the Defendant found the fact that the global income tax for the year 2008 and 2009 was imposed a general under-reported additional tax, not an unfair under-reported additional tax. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff on March 1, 2014 to additionally pay the global income tax for the year 2008, by applying Article 47-3(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “former Framework Act on National Taxes”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s omission in the return of KRW 1,208 was caused by a false loan contract and a false loan contract report (hereinafter referred to as the “report”).

G. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 28, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on November 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 4, 6

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleading, including the number

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Claim as to unjust underreporting additional tax

In order to impose an unfair under-reported additional tax, the purpose of tax evasion exists and the act of tax evasion is to be conducted, and these two requirements must be met. However, considering the fact that the Plaintiff is a tax relation other than the door, the ordinary person is difficult to distinguish business income and other income, and that the Plaintiff was directly remitted KRW 1 and 2 of this case to the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name, not the borrowed account, the Plaintiff did not have the purpose of tax evasion. The Plaintiff prepared a monetary lending contract statement on KRW 1 and 2 of this case for the purpose of submitting it to the Bank of Korea due to mistake in the procedure and submitted it to the Bank of Korea, and the Plaintiff did not have any positive act by the Plaintiff considering that the Plaintiff did not submit the documents to the Defendant at the global income tax return for the year 208 and 209. Accordingly,

2) Claim in violation of the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation

The instant disposition was made based on the duplicate investigation conducted on the same tax item and the same taxable period, and thus illegal.

3) Claims in violation of the underlying taxation principle

The instant disposition is unlawful, since it is against the underlying taxation principle that imposes an unfair under-reported additional tax on the basis of the exceptional taxation of the underlying taxation principle, because it violates the underlying taxation principle.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Claim as to unjust underreporting additional tax

A) According to Articles 47-3(2) and 47-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 27(2)2, 5, and 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21937, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes”), where a taxpayer prepares false evidence or false documents, or files a return on the global income tax base by fraud or other unlawful means to manipulate or conceal transactions, or to evade national taxes, an additional tax shall be imposed on an unjust under-reported return.

Meanwhile, considering the regulatory structure of Article 47-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the language and text of each subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the legal nature of penalty taxes for underreporting, where Article 47-3(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes conceals or disguises all or part of the fact that serves as the basis for calculating the tax base or the amount of national tax, it is understood that the imposition and collection of tax is impossible or considerably difficult, and thus, imposing penalty taxes much higher than those of the general underreporting rather than those of the “unfair method” in order to induce the taxpayer to faithfully report the tax base. In addition, Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the purpose of evading national tax should be determined to include “unfair method” under Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Article 47-3(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes). Therefore, it is difficult to determine 130 cases of the application of the tax base for underreporting by 20.

B) If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiff is recognized as having prepared a false monetary lending contract and a false monetary lending contract statement with the purport that the plaintiff borrowed USD 1,00,000 from LAAA on Nov. 28, 2008 and USD 1,500,000 on Nov. 30, 2009, and submitted it to the Bank of Korea.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and evidence Nos. 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have underreported the global income tax base in 2008 and 2009 by preparing a false monetary lending contract and a false monetary lending and borrowing contract statement and submitting it to the Bank of Korea in order to conceal transactions with respect to KRW 1 and 2 of this case.

① The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the instant disposition was inappropriate because it was difficult to distinguish the Plaintiff’s KRW 1 and 2 as business income or as other income. However, the Plaintiff did not report the Plaintiff’s global income tax return for 2008 and 209 to include KRW 1 and 2 in other income, but did not report the Plaintiff’s acquisition of KRW 1 and 2 as it did not include any income amount.

② The Plaintiff prepared a false monetary lending contract and a false monetary lending contract and submitted it to the Bank of Korea, and made it difficult to discover the taxation requirements by writing out the appearance that the KRW 1 and 2 of the instant case seems not to fall under the income amount subject to global income tax. As seen earlier, at the time of filing a global income tax return for the year 2008 and 2009, the Plaintiff omitted the KRW 1,2 of the instant case from the income amount. The Plaintiff did not have persuasive explanation as to the circumstances leading up to the preparation of the said false monetary lending contract and the false monetary lending contract, and there is no other circumstance that the Plaintiff should have reported to the Bank of Korea the false monetary lending contract and the false monetary lending contract.

③ There is no direct connection between the Plaintiff’s receipt of the remittance of KRW 1 and 2 as a deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name, not a borrowed account, and the existence of the purpose of tax evasion.

④ Since 1989, the Plaintiff operated BB corporation engaged in export and import business (metallic products), non-metallic metal wholesale and retail business, etc., and the Plaintiff’s global income tax return for 2008 and 2009 was represented by a tax accountant. Since the Plaintiff appears to have operated the said BB corporation and received advice from a certified tax accountant, etc. on the tax relations, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was in a tax relationship is not persuasive for the reasons why the Plaintiff filed the return of the tax base for global income tax for 2008 and 2009.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff underreporting the global income tax base for the tax evasion for the purpose of tax evasion by an active act in 2008 and 2009, the instant disposition imposing an unfair under-reported additional tax on the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 47-3(2) and 47-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 27(2)2, 5, and 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes is lawful.

2) Claim in violation of the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation

Article 81-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that Article 81-2 (2) of the same Act provides that "in cases where questions are made in order to determine or correct the tax base and amount of national taxes, or the relevant books, documents or other articles are inspected, investigated, or the submission thereof is ordered," and Article 81-4 (2) of the same Act provides that "in cases where the relevant books, documents or other articles

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant conducted a tax investigation again while rendering the instant disposition other than the instant tax investigation conducted against the Plaintiff from August 30, 2011 to October 22, 2011. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion premised on the premise that the Defendant conducted a tax investigation again against the Plaintiff is without merit.

3) Claims in violation of the underlying taxation principle

According to Article 80(3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009) Article 80(3) of the same Act, where a tax authority cannot calculate the amount of income by a field investigation, it is exceptionally permitted to determine the amount of income by a field investigation. As long as the amount of income for KRW 1 and 2 of this case is legally determined by a method of a field survey, calculating the under-reported tax base based on the amount of income calculated by a decision of an estimate survey and imposing an unfair under-

3. Conclusion

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