The Plaintiff supplied the instant franchise dental clinic with the trademark right in return for the user fee of each of the ten million won.

The trademark right contract of this case cannot be deemed to have been set flexibly in consideration of the benefits arising from the use of trademark rights, such as sales, business situation, etc. with each master franchisee.

2015-Revocation of imposition, including corporate tax, etc.

AA

O Head of tax office

2017.06.21

2017.07.26

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s revocation claim on the portion exceeding KRW 134,885,600 (including additional tax) out of KRW 149,885,600 (including imposition of value-added tax) imposed on the Plaintiff for the first period of 2012.

2. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of corporate tax for the business year 2012 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2014 exceeds KRW 226,289,99,181 (including additional tax) and the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first period portion in 2012 (including additional tax) exceeding KRW 149,885,60 (including additional tax) and the portion exceeding KRW 130,759,291 out of the remainder other than the dismissed portion in paragraph (1) shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant imposed corporate tax on the Plaintiff on July 1, 2014 (including additional taxes), KRW 226,289,94 (including additional taxes), KRW 149,885,600 (including additional taxes), and KRW 10,281,272 (including additional taxes) for the second period of 2012.

1. Details of disposition;

A. The Plaintiff supplied a dental clinic business entity, including the business entity that runs the business consulting service business, and the dental clinic business entity including each dental clinic business entity in the separate sheet No. 1 column from January 2015 to May 2012, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant dental clinic business entity”) with the service of using the LL and trademark right (the trademark right of the Korean Intellectual Property Office 41-2008-ried, hereinafter “the instant trademark right”).

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, upon conducting a corporate integration investigation against the Plaintiff, omitted the Plaintiff’s sales revenue of the trademark right of this case corresponding to the portion of non-issuance of the tax invoice, as stated in the column of “amount omitted” in attached Table 1, during the taxable period from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012, and omitted the Plaintiff’s sales revenue of the trademark right of this case corresponding to the portion of non-issuance of the tax invoice, and ② waived the Plaintiff’s sales revenue of the trademark right of this case corresponding to the portion of non-issuance of the tax invoice as stated in the column of “amount of waiver of the claim” in attached Table 1, deemed that the waiver of the trademark right of this case exceeds the entertainment expense limit

C. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant revised the tax base according to the above taxation data and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the amount of KRW 253,865,920 for the business year 2012, and KRW 149,885,60 for the first half year of 2012 (including additional taxes), and KRW 10,281,270 for the second half year of 2012 (including additional taxes) by deducting the input tax amount from the expenditure for the purchase cost of yachts which are assets unrelated to business (hereinafter referred to as "in sequence imposition disposition of the corporate tax of this case; imposition disposition of the first year of this case; imposition disposition of the second year value-added tax of this case; and imposition disposition of the second year value-added tax of this case).

D. On October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On June 19, 2015, the Tax Tribunal rendered a re-audit decision to the effect that the Plaintiff will re-audit the trademark right fee of this case reverted to the Plaintiff on the grounds of the instant trademark use contract, etc. concluded between the Plaintiff and each dental clinic of this case.

E. On October 2015, the Defendant corrected the amount of penalty tax for underreporting amounting to KRW 27,575,926 as penalty tax for underreporting, and the amount of penalty tax for underreporting was reduced to KRW 15,000 as penalty tax for underreporting, on November 8, 2016, to the effect that “the initial tax base is justifiable, but not verified by cash leakage, etc.,” taking into account the content of the instant trademark use agreement, the contents of each dental clinic reply, the details of issuance of tax invoices, and the details of payment receipt.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 9, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legality of a lawsuit

A disposition of reducing the tax base and amount of tax constitutes a disposition of cancelling part of the amount of tax imposed by the initial imposition, not by the initial imposition and separate taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du3211, May 26, 1998). If an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition becomes null and void due to revocation, and no longer exists. A revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006).

On the other hand, the revocation claim for the portion exceeding 134,885,600 won out of the imposition disposition 149,885,600 won of the first imposition disposition of value-added tax of this case (=149,885,600 won - 15,000 won), among the instant lawsuit, is a subject of an administrative disposition for which there is no revocation, and thus, is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) With respect to the imposition of the corporate tax and the imposition of the value-added tax for the first time of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s trademark use agreement concluded with each of the instant dental clinics is unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff provided the service of the instant trademark in return for the use of the instant dental clinics in return, taking into account the benefits arising from the use of each of the instant dental clinics, including the sale, business situation, opening, and closure. In 2012, the Plaintiff was unable to receive usage fees from each of the instant dental clinics, and the Plaintiff revised the tax invoice issued for the modification of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice that was issued for the previous mistake. As such, each of the instant dispositions on the premise that the Plaintiff provided the service of the instant dental clinics in return for

2) Regarding the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second period of the instant case, the Defendant’s purchase of a yacht subject to non-deduction of the input tax amount is related to the welfare of each of the instant dental clinics, and thus, the said imposition based on non-deduction of the input tax amount for the purchase cost of a yacht is unlawful

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) According to the disposition imposing corporate tax of this case and the disposition imposing value-added tax of 10, Gap evidence 6-1 through 4, Gap evidence 7-1 through 29, Gap evidence 10-1, 2, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, 12-1, 2-2, and Eul evidence 12-1 through 13, and the purport of the testimony and oral argument of SS 20, the plaintiff's sales contract of this case which was concluded with dental clinic business operator for 0, 200, 100, 200, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 10, 20, 20, 10, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 2, 20, 2, 3.

However, according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments in the Evidence Nos. 17 and 32 as to the "YL," among the dental clinics in the instant case, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice on the trademark fee of the instant dental clinic on March 9, 2012 to the above dental clinic, and the Plaintiff’s allegation that the sales omitted during the taxable period of the Plaintiff’s dental clinic was KRW 10,000,000,000,000, and the sales omitted during the pertinent dental clinic was within the scope of the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Plaintiff did not have any ground to recognize the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion.

Meanwhile, even in cases where it is deemed that a taxation disposition is unlawful due to a mistake in the process of calculating the amount of tax in a lawsuit seeking revocation of taxation, when the amount of tax to be imposed lawfully based on the data submitted until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court is calculated, the court shall not revoke the entire amount of the taxation disposition as unlawful, but shall regard only the portion exceeding the reasonable calculated tax amount among the taxation disposition as unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu19496, Sept. 29, 200) and revoke only the unlawful portion of the taxation disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu19496, Sept. 29, 200). If the amount of the corporate tax for the business year 2012 exceeds KRW 10,000,000,000, the amount of tax for the first-term value-added tax for the year 20,126,309, respectively, exceeds KRW 218,180,269,3947

2) Determination on the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of this case

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the purchase of the plaintiff's yacht is related to the plaintiff's business or constitutes entertainment expenses. The plaintiff's assertion 2) is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Among the instant lawsuits, the claim for revocation of the portion exceeding 134,885,600 won among the disposition imposing value-added tax for the first term portion of the year 2012 is unlawful. Thus, the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim, excluding the above dismissed portion, shall be accepted within the scope of recognition as above, and the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.