beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The second sentence No. 15 of the judgment of the first instance court was confirmed, and the following additional contents were prepared in the course of the tax investigation: “B received the Plaintiff’s cash sales amount of KRW 617,164,940, such as the key amount of the instant case, from the first to the second taxable period of 2006 to the second taxable period of 2011, and omitted the report.”
The following facts cannot be deemed as sales concealed by the Plaintiff’s representative director of the Plaintiff’s personal account, and even if part of the Plaintiff’s personal account was partially deposited in the Plaintiff’s personal account, since the Plaintiff had already failed to pay taxes by entirely reporting the value-added tax and the corporate tax, each disposition of this case, which the Plaintiff deemed as tax evasion by concealing the sales, is unlawful.
According to the third judgment of the court of first instance, if the tax authority prepared and issued a confirmation document, etc. stating that a certain part of the transaction is a processing transaction in the course of a tax investigation by the taxpayer whether the Plaintiff omitted the key amount, etc. of this case from sales following the third instance judgment, the value of the evidence of the confirmation document, etc. shall not be denied without permission, unless there are special circumstances, such as the fact that the confirmation document is forced against the will of the originator, or it is difficult to take it as supporting material for the specific facts due to lack of the content thereof, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 205Du12589, Feb. 24, 2006; 2005Du12589, Dec. 6, 2002>