Whether a newspaper company is exempt from corporate tax due to the omission of advertising income and appropriation of processing expenses.

Since the guidance advertisement implemented the fixed amount payment system, it is not omitted from the revenue amount, but omitted from the court auction revenue amount, and it is legitimate to deduct the input tax amount from the tax invoice different from the fact.

1. The portion exceeding each legitimate tax amount of corporate tax, special rural development tax, and value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff on each day of the disposition stated in the attached disposition details, and each exceeding the reasonable amount of each notified amount on the date of notification of changes in the attached income amount shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts of the first and second instances, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. Each claim amount shall be revoked on the date on which the Defendant notifies the Plaintiff of each claim among the respective notified tax amount regarding each corporate tax, special rural development tax, and value-added tax, and each notified amount on the date of notification on the details of the notice of change in the attached salt amount.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 2-1 through 10, Gap evidence 3-1-5, Gap evidence 4-1-2, Eul evidence 5-1-5, Eul evidence 59-1 through 10, and Eul evidence 59-1-1 through 10.

A. The plaintiff is a company that runs newspaper publishing business (the trade name was changed from ○○ newspaper company on October 15, 1998 to ○○ New News company, Inc. on October 15, 1998, and the change was made again on January 1, 2004 to the current trade name).

B. In early 2001, the ○○ regional tax office omitted the Plaintiff’s advertising revenue, omitted corporate tax by appropriating processing expenses, discovered consultations on the omission of value-added tax by receiving false tax invoices, and notified the Defendant of taxation data.

C. Accordingly, the defendant included the plaintiff's information advertising income, the amount of revenue from the court auction announcement and the amount of low price for related persons in gross income, and calculated expenses for coverage expenses, entertainment expenses distributed free of charge and promotional expenses, etc., advertisement expenses, etc., and calculated expenses for office supplies acquired as advertising expenses in non-deductible expenses, the defendant imposed corporate tax of 515,456,110 won [29,701,212 + additional tax of 215,754,901, 10 won + below 10 won + amount of 210,754,90, 100 won, 97, 97, 97, 2, 295, 703, 960, 97, 197, 197, 304, 196, 196, 30, 194, 194, 194, 297, 197

또한, 피고는 위 안내광고수입, 법원경매공고수입, 종업원에게 무상 제공된 시상품의 가액을 원고의 부가가치세 매출세액에 산입하고, 면세매입세액 증가액 및 이○○, 정○○에게 광고대형수수료를 지급하면서 교부받은 세금계산서가 사실과 다른 세금계산서라 하여 매입세액 불공제하여 원고에게, 2001. 7. 18. 1996년 제1기 부가가치세금 3,456,963,605원{산출세액 금 3,408,135,962원 + 가산세 금 48,827,643원, 신고세액 금 3,250,393,623원 공제하여 금 206,569,980원 부과고지}, 2001. 9. 1. 1996년 제2기 부가가치세 금 3,384,443,734원{산출세액 금 3,341,529,823원 + 가산세 금 42,913,911원, 신고세액 금 3,194,963,068원 공제하여 금 189,480,660원 부과고지}, 1997년 제1기 부가가치세 금 1,553,631,535원{산출세액 금 1,520,502,164원 + 가산세 금 33,129,371원, 신고세액 금 1,410,642,609원 공제하여 금 142,988,920원 부과고지}, 1997년 제2기 부가가치세 금1,104,824,827원{산출세액 금 1,040,298,888원+가산세 금 64,525,939원, 신고세액 금 838,320,053원 공제하여 금 266,504,770원 부과고지}, 1998년 제1기 부가가치세 금 1,751,926,571원{산출세액 금 1,685,638,899원 + 가산세 금 66287,672원, 신고세액 금 1,203,389,545원 공제하여 금 548,537,026원 부과고지}, 1998년 제2기 부가가치세 금 1,894,673,564원{산출세액 금 1,867,963,489원 + 가산세 금 26,710,075원, 신고세액 금 1,769,239,621원 공제하여 금 125,433,940원 부과고지}, 1999년 제1기 부가가치세 금 2,420,917,570원 {산출세액 금 2,381,244,918원 + 가산세 금 39,672,652원, 신고세액 금 2,322,419,919원 공제하여 금 98,497,650원 부과고지}, 1999년 제2기 부가가치세 금 4,048,690,414원{산출세액 금 3,998,964,714원 + 가산세 금 49,725,700원, 신고세액금 3,907,784,882원 공제하여 금 140,905,530원 부과고지}, 2000년 제1기 부가가치세 금 2,633,422,976원{산출세액 금 2,605,580,364원 + 가산세 금 27,842,612원, 신고세액 금 2,552,133,764원 공제하여 금 81,289,210원 부과고지}, 2000년 제2기 부가가치세 금 2,100,003,888원{산출세액 금 2,070,014,523원 + 가산세 금 29,989,365원, 신고세액 금 2,000,790,223원 공제하여 금 99,213,660원 부과고지}을 각 부과하였다(이하 '이 사건 부가가치세 부과처분'이라 한다).

Meanwhile, on March 27, 2001 and September 1, 2001, the Defendant disposed of the Plaintiff’s income amount as a representative bonus with respect to the amount deemed as advertising revenue amount and processing expenses, and notified the Plaintiff as stated in the details of the notice of change in the income amount in attached Form (hereinafter “the notice of change in the income amount”).

D. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on September 12, 2001 against the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the year 1995, among the corporate tax of this case, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on June 4, 2002. On October 12, 2001, the National Tax Tribunal appealed against the corporate tax for the year 1996 and 1997 among the corporate tax of this case, the corporate tax of this case, the special rural development tax of this case, the disposition of imposition of value added tax of this case, and the notice of change in income amount of this case. However, the National Tax Tribunal recognized that the supply price of the free newspaper for distribution provided to the branch of this case on May 28, 2002 should be included in deductible expenses, but all the remaining claims for appeal by the plaintiff were dismissed.

2. Determination on this part of the grounds for appeal

The plaintiff asserts that the notice of the change in the amount of income of this case should also be accepted in consideration of the need for objection because it is anticipated that the disposition of imposing income tax should be followed accordingly. The defendant asserts that the notice of the change in the amount of income of this case is not an independent disposition subject to appeal litigation, and that the part seeking the revocation is unlawful.

On the other hand, in the case where the tax authorities' disposition of income and the notice of change in the amount of income are given, if the tax authorities' disposition of income and the notice of change in the amount of income are deemed to have been paid to the person to whom the income recorded in the notice of change was given, the tax withholding liability is established at the same time, and the tax withholding liability is established at the same time. In the case of the tax withholding agent, the tax withholding agent bears the duty to pay the withholding tax according to the content of the disposition of income stated in the notice of change in the amount of income to the head of the competent tax office, etc. by the 10th of the following month. If the tax withholding agent fails to pay it, it is subject to penalty as well as criminal punishment. In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the notice of change in amount of income is a tax administrative disposition that directly affects the tax liability of the tax authorities, which is the withholding agent, and therefore, the defendant's defense to the effect that the notice of change in amount of income

3. Whether the corporate tax of this case, imposition of special rural development tax and value added tax, and notification of changes in income amount are legitimate;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The omission in import of information.

Since 1988, when the Plaintiff had increased the newspaper space in preparation for Seoul Olympic Games, but the number of advertisements being received was insufficient, the Plaintiff operated the advertisement column by means of a fixed-amount payment scheme for the amount of advertisements allocated regardless of whether the business office has actually received several recommendations at the price. However, such fixed-amount advertisements were operated as a fixed-amount payment scheme for the amount of advertisements paid to the Plaintiff from December 198 to December 1998, and such fixed-amount advertisements were operated as a fixed-amount payment scheme for the amount of advertisements paid to the Plaintiff.

However, as above, the Defendant deemed that all of the parts entered in the official column in the revenue sheet of the business place prepared by the Plaintiff during the period for which the fixed amount was paid was omitted, and calculated the amount of advertising revenue based on the unit price per area, and calculated 65% of them as the amount of advertising omission by the Plaintiff, and calculated it as the output tax amount of value-added tax for each period from 1996 to 1998.

Therefore, it is unlawful for the Defendant to calculate the amount of advertising revenue based on the same standard as that of general advertising revenue by erroneously determining the type of advertising revenue based on the Plaintiff’s fixed amount payment system, and to impose annual corporate tax, special rural development tax, and value-added tax based on

(2) The omission of the court auction notice revenue.

The Plaintiff and the head of the ○○ business office agreed to pay advertising fees to the Plaintiff, which are 65% per share of the court auction notice, to the Plaintiff by new ○○○. Accordingly, ○○ business office has paid advertising fees to the Plaintiff.

However, as a result of the tax investigation of ○○ regional tax office, it was found that the ○○ business office omitted part of the total amount received by the court auction announcement. At that time, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the ○○ business office omitted payment advertising fees by appropriating the total amount received by the court auction announcement under its own.

Therefore, it is unfair for the Defendant to calculate the omitted portion as the Plaintiff’s revenue by appropriating the amount received by the court auction announcement of the ○○ Business Office under consideration. As such, it is unlawful to calculate the amount received by the Plaintiff as the amount received by the advertisement that was not received by the Plaintiff, and to include the amount received by the advertisement in the gross income for the year 1996 and the year 197, and to calculate the corporate tax for the year 197.

(3) External advertising services part

From 192, from February 1, 1999, the Plaintiff delegated the external advertising services and the gold services to ○○ newspaper companies (hereinafter referred to as the “○○○○ Business Bureau”) operated by ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “○○ Business Support Group”) and to ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “○○○”) and individual advertising business operators (hereinafter referred to as the “YO”) respectively, and paid a certain percentage of the advertising fees as an advertising commission in return for the delegation to ○○○○○ Business Support Group, and paid a certain percentage of the advertising fees as an advertising commission to the Plaintiff. The franchise independently registered its business, signed a separate contract with the business operator who runs his own business, and provided the advertising services to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff received the tax invoice in its name as the revenue amount.

Therefore, it is legitimate that the Plaintiff paid the service cost to the franchise who provided the Plaintiff lawfully, and received the tax invoice in the name of the franchise. However, although the Defendant received the tax invoice in the name of the promotion business entity and the business support group, the Defendant received the tax invoice in the name of the franchise because it is an advertisement service provided by the promotion business entity and the business support group, which is in fact received the tax invoice in the name of the franchise. Therefore, it is illegal to deduct the input tax amount for the reason that it is a tax invoice written differently from the fact, and calculate the value-added tax for each period from 1996 to 2

(4) The disposal portion of income

Despite the fact that the plaintiff did not have any revenue in relation to the guidance advertisement of each business office and the auction advertisement of ○○ business office, the defendant deemed that the plaintiff omitted some of the above revenue, and at the same time, included the omitted amount in the plaintiff's gross income, and made a bonus recognized to the representative ○○ and ○○○. Accordingly, the defendant's notice of change in the income amount of this case was also illegal.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) Information advertising and omission in import notice by court below

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 11, evidence No. 16-1 through 69, evidence No. 17-1 through 69, evidence No. 18-1 through 119, evidence No. 19-1 through 105, evidence No. 20-21, evidence No. 22-1 through 6, evidence No. 23-1 through 5, evidence No. 24, evidence No. 17-1 through 187, evidence No. 18-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 19, 20, evidence No. 21-1, 22, evidence No. 60 through 63, evidence No. 63-1, evidence No. 64-2, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 17-1, evidence No. 18-2, evidence No. 1, 20-3, evidence No. 63-4, and evidence No.

(A) A newspaper advertisement published by the Plaintiff mainly aims at corporate advertisements and a general advertisement for unregistered business operators, duty-free business operators, and general public, etc., including small-scale advertisements such as finance, loss, solicitation, private teaching institutes, and businesses, and include one standardized form at a certain page of the newspaper. In the case of a newspaper advertisement, most of the transactions for which no tax invoice is issued are published.

(B) Since 1988, the Plaintiff forced to allocate the amount of information advertisements to each advertising establishment from around 1988, and carried out a fixed amount payment that requires the Plaintiff to pay a certain amount of information advertisements daily to the Plaintiff even if the amount of information advertisements actually received falls short of the amount of information advertisements so allocated. The fixed amount payment related to information advertisements was abolished only after December 1998.

(C) Each advertising business office pays a certain amount of information advertising fees to the Plaintiff each day regardless of the actual amount of information advertising during each taxable period of this case, and receives more information advertising than the amount to be deposited to the Plaintiff. However, if the amount to be deposited to the Plaintiff is less than the amount to be deposited to the Plaintiff, each advertising business office suffered losses as much as the difference in the amount of information advertising, while the amount of information advertising was less than the amount to be deposited to the Plaintiff. During the period when the fixed amount payment system on the information advertising was implemented, the information advertising was not calculated according to the predetermined advertising unit price, and there was a case where the information advertising is not allowed to be placed at a low price or free advertising for the purpose of receiving information, and since the abolition of the fixed amount payment system on the information advertising around December 1998, the information advertising was calculated in accordance with the unit price of the advertisement as provided for in the general advertising.

(D) However, the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s unit price for one-way advertising advertising in calculating the omitted unit price in calculating the income tax and the value-added tax in the year 1, 2, 197, 2, and 2, 1998, by deeming that all of the parts entered in the business revenue table in the business revenue table prepared by the Plaintiff on the date of receiving the fixed amount for the guidance advertising as above was omitted from the Plaintiff’s income, and adding the omitted amount to the gross income and output tax.

Places of business

Recruitments

Lost advertisements

Financial Advertising

Business advertisements;

Advertisements such as private teaching institutes

○ Business Office

8,000 won

12,000 won

5,000 won

10,000 won

8,000 won

○ Business Office

8,000 won

5,000 won

9,000 won

8,000 won

8,000 won

○ ○ Business Place

8,000 won

8,000 won

5,000 won

8,000 won

8,000 won

○ Business Office

8,000 won

5,000 won

5,000 won

8,000 won

8,000 won

(E) On October 198, 1998, the Plaintiff sent to ○○ District Court ○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○ District Court”) a public letter stating that “the Plaintiff is making a clean newspaper production with the maximum lux electrical operation along with the CTS system. At present, ○○ District Court’s competent branch offices (west, Dong, Southern, and Northern) have the public summons, auction public notice, and nullification judgment, but the public notice of ○○○ branch was not yet published in the Plaintiff’s newspaper so that it can be published because it is not yet published in the Plaintiff’s newspaper.”

(F) On December 17, 1998, the ○ District Court held a judge meeting in charge of auction to classify the unit price of one newspaper into 1,2, and 3 parts, including value-added tax, the unit price of 11 to 12§¯ in width and 3§¯ (1 to 0.3cm in width) with 11 to 3cm in width, and determined that the unit price of 1,2, and 55,000 to 10,000 won per case shall be the minimum auction price of less than one million won, and applied the unit price to 1/2.

On the other hand, the unit price of the Plaintiff’s application is KRW 80,000 (gold KRW 90,000 before December 27, 1998) which belongs to Class 2 group of newspaper companies.

(G) The Plaintiff agreed to designate ○○○○ District Court, ○○ District Court, and ○○ District Court’s ○○ Branch’s ○○ Branch’s ○○ Branch’s auction announcement as an agent. The Plaintiff calculated the advertising fee of KRW 77,00 per publication as to the auction announcement, etc. between ○○ and ○○○○○ Branch, and that KRW 65% of the advertising revenue shall

On the other hand, ○○ Business Office, when the auction notice fee is paid from each court, shall be counted as the revenue amount of the ○○ Business Office, and 65% of them shall be paid to the Plaintiff and processed expenses.

(2) External advertisement service part

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings as stated in Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 23, Eul evidence 24-1, 2, Eul evidence 25 through 37, Eul evidence 38-1, 2, Eul evidence 39 through 43, Eul evidence 4-1 through 44, Eul evidence 45 through 57, and Eul evidence 45 through 57:

(A) The part of ○○ Project Bureau

1) From around 1984, ○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which operated an advertising agency by being awarded a contract for the urban bus advertising business from the Plaintiff. From January 1, 1992 to ○○○○○○○○, ○○○ operated an advertising agency by changing the trade name from January 1, 1992 to ○○○○○○○○. On February 1, 1999, ○○○ was transferred all the businesses of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and operated the trade name until December 31, 201.

(10) On December 1, 1991, the Plaintiff is obligated to unilaterally pay to ○○○○○ bus sales services under the name of ○○○○○○○○ bus sales services. The Plaintiff is obligated to unilaterally pay the sales revenue of the Plaintiff to ○○○○○○○ bus sales services, including sales revenue, and the sales revenue of the Plaintiff’s regular bus in an area under its direct control, seat direct bus, and airport bus advertising services. (1) On December 1, 1991, the Plaintiff is obligated to provide management services, including sales revenue, to ○○○○○ bus sales services. (2) On the basis of the monthly sales revenue of the Plaintiff’s sales revenue, the Plaintiff shall be liable for any defects in the sales revenue of the Plaintiff’s sales revenue, including sales revenue, to ○○○ bus sales services, and the monthly sales revenue and sales revenue of the Plaintiff’s sales revenue and expenditure of the Plaintiff’s sales revenue and expenditure of the Plaintiff’s business.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff dispatched one employee to the ○○ Project Bureau (from January 1, 1992 to May 1995; from that time, from that time, from that time to August 1998 to that time, red ○○ and from that time, from that time to that time, Kim ○ was dispatched respectively) supervised the sales and receipts of the ○○ Project Bureau (the same applies to the case of the post-project support group).

3) This ○○○○○○○○ shall enter into a monthly contract with its staff members (an employee in charge of internal management or advertisement attachment work after receiving a fixed amount of money, and an employee who receives an advertisement order separately), in addition to its members, shall employ franchises on behalf of its members, and shall actively support the sale of out-of-door bus advertising between its members from January 1, 1992 to January 1, 1993, and this ○○○ shall enter into an advertising contract with its members with the same ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. (6) The monthly contract with its members shall be entered into with its members to pay a certain amount of fee (at least 5 million won, less than 30 million won, less than 1 million won, less than 50 billion won, and more than 100,000 won per month, and more than 100,000 won per month, and more than 500,000 won per month,00 won.

4)However, upon the change to the direct operation system of the Plaintiff, this ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was required to issue a tax invoice in its name with respect to 50% of the advertising fees that ○○○○○○○○○○ received from the Plaintiff on the first 193, with the intent to reduce the tax burden, and upon its review on the remaining 50% of the advertising fees that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ received, the Plaintiff agreed to issue a tax invoice in its name with respect to 50% of the advertising fees that ○○○○○○ received each month, and to receive a uf09e delivery by uf09e issuance by referring

Thus, this "○○" issued a tax invoice with respect to the amount equivalent to 50% of the advertising fees it receives from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff from around that time, and operated a business in the form of paying agency fees to the franchise. On the other hand, at the request of ○○○○ on September 1994, the franchise delegated the Plaintiff with all of the business affairs concerning the orders for the advertisement of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ to the franchise, and ② the contract fee shall be calculated in the country of ○○○, based on 10% of the monthly total amount, and if deemed necessary for the business policy, the increase or decrease shall be calculated within the limit of 20% of the total amount of the fees it receives, and ③ the tax invoice for monthly contract fees shall be submitted to the Plaintiff by the fifth day of the following month, and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff shall submit the tax invoice to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff shall be submitted to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, regardless of the terms of its receipt from the Plaintiff and the 9.

5) However, there was no change in the type of business, including the owner of the advertisement, and the method of receiving the fee, before or after the change in the method of issuing the tax invoice as above.

(B) Part of the Project Support Group

1) On December 17, 1998, the Plaintiff shall pay ○○○○○ bus sales commission (1) to ○○○○○○○○○○ bus sales commission, and (2) to ○○○○○○○ bus sales commission, including the issuance of tax invoices, sales commission, and the verification of the details of sales commission, among the business activities involving the general seat buses in Seoul Metropolitan area, the airport buses, and their reserve vehicles. ② The Plaintiff shall have the sales office for ○○ bus sales, and (3) ○○○○○ shall employ a person at his own responsibility and bear all the responsibility for the employment of the number of its employees. ④ The ○○○○ bus sales commission shall be subject to supervision over the sales of out-of-city bus sales, receipts, and management of outstanding money monthly, and the Plaintiff shall be liable for full-time employees to carry out all the business activities including the receipt of advertising money, and the Plaintiff shall be liable for the payment of 1/200 or more of the sales revenue of the following month to ○○○ bus sales commission.

2) On May 19, 1999, the Plaintiff: (a) on May 19, 199, between Ma○○ and Ma○○○, issued a tax invoice for advertising sales commission received every month from the Plaintiff under the name of Ma○○ and business support group; (b) submitted a tax invoice issued under the name of Ma○○ to the Plaintiff in combination with Ma○○○ and submitted it to the Plaintiff; (c) on the basis of the criminal issue of Mauf09e, the obligation arising therefrom is solely responsible to the Plaintiff and Ma○○; and (d) on the basis of the claim and obligation relationship between the Plaintiff following the receipt of the franchise tax invoice and the franchise, the Plaintiff prepared an agreement with Ma○○, Maf09-e criminal issues against the Plaintiff, Mauf09-e, without the consent of Ma○○○.

3) From January 1, 1999, the Plaintiff and franchise delegated franchise with all business affairs concerning bus advertising orders and receipts in 00 city, the Plaintiff submitted monthly tax invoices to the Plaintiff by the 5th day of the following month, and with respect to the above fees, the Plaintiff submitted to the Plaintiff by the 5th day of the following month, and with respect to the above fees, attached documents of the above agreement, when submitting a tax invoice on advertising fees to the Plaintiff from January 1, 1999, the Plaintiff’s receipt is delegated to the business support group, ② the claims and obligations arising between the franchise and the Plaintiff are received from the business support group regardless of the Plaintiff. ③ When the tax invoice in the name of the franchise is changed, the Plaintiff was immediately notified to the Plaintiff, and each letter of delegation and each letter of delegation were prepared to the Plaintiff (the letter of delegation and each letter of delegation) to the effect that all civil and criminal responsibility for the change occurred, and that the letter of delegation and each letter of delegation were made to the Plaintiff and each letter of delegation were dispatched from the business support group.

4) The Plaintiff paid KRW 6,205,662,458, which is 20% of the advertising revenue generated from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 200, to Matri○○○. Of its advertising revenue, Ma○○ paid KRW 1,973,408,658, which is equivalent to approximately 8% of the advertising revenue, to Matri○○○○, as a fee, paid KRW 1,973,408,658, which is equivalent to KRW 8% of the advertising revenue. However, in the case of Matri○○, Matri○ received KRW 4% of the fixed wage in lieu of receiving KRW 1,720,00 (the payment made by Matri○○ to ○○○ was included in the fee paid by Matri○○, and 20% of the total advertising revenue was paid to ○○○, which was paid as a substitute for the advertisement revenue to ○○○.

5) The franchise issued a tax invoice with the value of supply equivalent to 8% of its received advertising revenue, and delivered to the Plaintiff via Jung○○ through which the Plaintiff was instructed or controlled by the Plaintiff, and the advertising fee was deposited into the business support group.

6) The franchise did not have any fact that he had consulted with the Plaintiff on the fee rate that he received, and it was originally determined by ○○○ upon consultation with the Plaintiff. At the time of ○○○’s management, it was divided into 8% fees and 8% fees, instead of receiving the fixed amount of 8% fees and 8% fees. From the date of ○○’s acquisition, 8% fees were paid as a substitute.

C. Determination

(1) The omission in import of information.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's revenue or output tax amount due to the guidance advertising can be known to the fact that the defendant was less than the revenue or output tax amount based on the dispositions of this case. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case based on the revenue or output tax amount calculated by mistake is unlawful within the scope exceeding the amount of the legitimate tax amount column stated in the separate disposition details. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified within

(2) The omission of the court notice of auction revenue

First, whether the Plaintiff was aware of the unit price of the court auction announcement, ① the district court, ○○ District Court, ○○ District Court, and ○○○ District Court’s branch court auction announcement was conducted for several years exclusively (the whole period of each of the respective taxable periods of this case). The unit price of the court auction announcement is not separately set at each time of advertisement, such as general advertisements, but is determined by the court. ② The Plaintiff actively operated a separate department in charge of the advertising business and actively requested a certain court to publish the auction announcement; ③ at the time of the investigation of the ○○ regional tax office, new ○○ stated that the Plaintiff agreed to publish the unit price of the court auction announcement at KRW 7,00 with the Plaintiff; ④ As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that ○○○ was paying the increased or decreased tax amount with respect to the omitted unit price of the court auction announcement, and it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff was in violation of subparagraphs 13 and 14-3.

The Plaintiff asserted that ○○○ Business Office was not aware of the fact that the unit price for the court auction notice was underestimated during several years. However, in light of the facts acknowledged earlier, it is difficult in light of the empirical rule to accept that ○○ Business Office, which is virtually a business entity affiliated with the Plaintiff, deceivings the Plaintiff and understatings the unit price for the court auction notice on the financial resources table, and helps the Plaintiff believe that it was without any doubt during several years (if there is a circumstance, it seems that the Plaintiff and ○○ Business Office stated the amount underestimated the unit price for the court auction notice on the financial resources table was less than the legitimate amount for the purpose of causing tax burden).

On the other hand, on January 1, 1995, the Plaintiff entered into an advertising agency contract between ○○○ and ○○○○○○○○, which stipulates that 65% of the advertising amount shall be paid to the Plaintiff as advertising fees. The Plaintiff offered the service by inserting all the court auction announcement which ○○○○ business office received and requested to the Plaintiff. Since ○○○ business office received all the court auction announcement fees from the court, the Plaintiff’s advertising fees for the court auction announcement are already mature and conclusive in terms of the possibility of realizing the right. Thus, even if part of the advertising fees for the court auction announcement printed by the Plaintiff was not paid from ○○ business office, it is merely the difference between the time when the right which constitutes the cause of income and the time when income was realized. Thus, at the time of providing new service, the Plaintiff’s income from the legitimate court auction announcement fees that should be paid from ○○ business office was made.

Therefore, in imposing the corporate tax of this case, special rural development tax and value-added tax, it is legitimate to calculate the corporate tax of each taxable period of the plaintiff, special rural development tax and value-added tax based on the advertising contract concluded between the plaintiff and the business office as a result of the on-site investigation on new ○○, 7,000 won per case, which is the unit price of corporate auction announcement. Therefore, the plaintiff

(3) External advertising services part

According to the contents of the advertising contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is entitled to a fixed fee equivalent to a certain percentage of the advertising sales, and the Plaintiff is charged with duties such as setting the number of persons necessary for the provision of the advertising services, setting the personnel expenses, operating expenses, business means, etc. of the ○○○ Business Bureau and the Business Support Group, drawing up and submitting the monthly advertising sales details of the Plaintiff and the fee program. If the business performance is low, the Plaintiff appears to have granted exclusive rights to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ sales contract.

Therefore, the tax invoice under the name of the franchise received from the franchise on the premise that the Plaintiff received advertising services from the franchise is a tax invoice that is written differently from the fact. Therefore, the Defendant’s failure to deduct the input tax amount of the tax invoice under the name of the franchise in imposing the value-added tax in this case is lawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(4) The amount of corporate tax and other income disposition portion

As seen above, the Plaintiff’s revenue or output tax amount due to the guidance advertising is less than the amount or output tax amount that the Defendant used as the basis of the notice of changes in income amount and the corporate tax, special rural development tax, value-added tax, and each other’s revenue or output tax amount. Therefore, the notice of changes in income amount and each of the instant corporate tax, etc. based on the erroneous calculated revenue or output tax amount should be revoked as it is unlawful within the scope exceeding the reasonable amount stated in the notice of changes in income amount and the legitimate amount column

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, part of the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and the cancellation of disposition exceeding the above legitimate tax amount and amount is ordered, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.