Since it is difficult to view that each taxable income has been attributed to the pertinent business year, each disposition of this case is unlawful.

The evidence presented by the defendant alone is not sufficient to prove that taxable income exists in the pertinent year and that the taxable income is attributed to the pertinent business year, as alleged by the defendant, and all of the dispositions in this case are unlawful.

2016Guhap7786, revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax, etc.

AAAA

O Head of tax office

October 24, 2017

December 5, 2017

1. On June 2, 2014, the Defendant imposed corporate tax of KRW 000,00,000 on the Plaintiff for the business year 201, imposed corporate tax of KRW 000,000,000 for the business year 201, imposed corporate tax of KRW 000,000 for the business year 201, notified of the change in income amount of KRW 000,000 for the business year 201, and the notice of change in income amount of KRW 00,000 for the business

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity established on November 5, 2010 and engaged in the Bospering Institute business, the entrance training institute business, and the privateB is the representative director of the Plaintiff.

B. As a result of the consolidated investigation of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax from March 11, 2014 to April 19, 2014, the director of the regional tax office confirmed the Plaintiff’s omission of cash sales and credit card sales in the year 2011 and 2012 at the time of filing a corporate tax return in March 201 and 2012, and notified the Defendant of a revised resolution on the inclusion of the difference between the Plaintiff’s corporate tax return amount and the revenue amount on the account book kept by the Plaintiff as bonus for each of the gross income and the representative director’s privateB, and notified the Defendant of the revised resolution on the inclusion of the inclusion of the inclusion of the expenses and the inclusion of the inclusion of the expenses in deductible expenses in deductible expenses in deductible expenses in the account book (hereinafter “the revised resolution”).

C. Accordingly, on June 2, 2014, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,000,000,000,000 of corporate tax for the business year 201, and KRW 00,000,000 of corporate tax for the business year 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition of corporate tax”), KRW 00,000,000 for the year 201, and KRW 00,000,000 for the representative director’s bonus against the privateB, and notified the change of income amount (hereinafter “instant notice of change of income amount”).

D. Upon receipt of an objection, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 31, 2014. On December 30, 2015, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision that “the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall notify the changes in the amount of income calculated by subtracting KRW 22,929,274 from the amount of bonus disposal for the business year 2011, equivalent to the credit card payment fee out of the amount omitted sales, and KRW 93,780,80 from the amount of bonus disposal for the business year 20

E. Accordingly, in accordance with the purport of the above decision, the Defendant corrected ex officio the amount of KRW 00,000 by correcting ex officio that the sales of the store part among the corporate tax for the business year 2012 had been included in duplicate (the original case).

In the disposition of imposing corporate tax for the business year 201 and the disposition of imposing corporate tax for the year 2012 that remains after reduction as above, ‘the disposition of imposing corporate tax for the year 201', ‘the disposition of imposing corporate tax for the year 2011', ‘the disposition of imposing corporate tax', ‘the disposition of imposing corporate tax for the year 200,000,000, and ‘the notice of the change in the income amount' in 2012 (hereinafter ‘the notice of the change in the income amount' in this case).

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 and 3 through 6, and the purport of all pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s sales amount for the business year 201 and 2012 calculated by the Defendant shall not be deemed to be the Plaintiff’s sales in the case of nominal money, such as cash, rice, learning guidance expenses, and teaching material expenses, among the personal account opened by the head of the ParkCC headquarters. However, in the case of sales in December 201 and December 201, it shall be deemed that the advance for the operation of the private teaching institute for the next business year is the income belonging to the next business year not for each pertinent business year. However, it was erroneous in calculating the sales amount for each pertinent business year, and there is no ground for calculating the amount. Thus, it was erroneous in violation of Article 16 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, such as the calculation of the Plaintiff’s sales, and Article 66(4) of the Corporate Tax Act.

B. Determination

1) Since the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of a taxation disposition, the tax authority must prove the existence of taxable income and the fact that the income was attributed to the pertinent business year when the legality of a taxation disposition on income for a business year is disputed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du1826, Feb. 25, 2000).

2) In light of the following circumstances, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to deem that there was taxable income of KRW 00,00,000 in the business year 201, and that the taxable income was reverted to the business year concerned, as alleged by the Defendant, and furthermore, it is difficult to view that each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful in entirety, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the evidence presented by the Defendant alone was insufficient to prove that the taxable income was reverted to the business year concerned; and (b) the fact that the taxable income was reverted to the business year concerned.

① The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s annual sales amount of KRW 200,000 was determined as KRW 00,000,000, and that the basis for the calculation was that the National Tax Service’s credit card sales amount of KRW 000,000,000,000, and the cash return amount of KRW 000,000 when filing a corporate tax return was added to the Plaintiff’s annual sales amount of KRW 201.

② As above, the Defendant’s calculation basis of the Plaintiff’s sales amount for the business year 201 as determined by the Defendant is recognized by the Plaintiff’s entry in the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 7 (the details of the National Tax Service’s credit card sales in 201). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the cash sales amount of KRW 00,000,000 and the store’s revenue amount of KRW 00,000,000 (the Defendant’s cash sales amount of KRW 00,000,000 as at the time of filing the Plaintiff’s corporate tax return, which is the amount calculated by subtracting the credit card sales amount of KRW 1,353,787,648 on the Plaintiff’s tuition ledger from KRW 00,000,00 as at the time of filing the Plaintiff’s corporate tax return. However, it is difficult to understand the basis for such calculation).

③ The Defendant: (a) determined the Plaintiff’s annual sales amount of KRW 000,000; (b) compared the Plaintiff’s annual sales amount of KRW 000,000,000 with the Plaintiff’s tuition fees collected from the PC; and (c) determined the basis for calculating the annual sales amount of KRW 000,000,000 on the National Tax Integration System’s credit card sales amount of KRW 000,000,000; and (d) compared the Plaintiff’s personal account deposit amount of KRW 00,000,000 with the Plaintiff’s tuition fees collected from the PC, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff calculated the omitted sales amount of KRW 1,00,000,000 after subtracting the Plaintiff’s revenue amount from the Plaintiff’s personal account deposit amount of KRW 1,000,000,000.

④ As indicated in the above (3), the Defendant’s health account and credit card sales amount of KRW 00,000,000,000, out of the cash sales amount of KRW 000,000,000, out of the cash sales amount, are deemed to have been written on the basis of the Plaintiff’s calculation of the sales amount for the business year 2012, which was confirmed by the Plaintiff’s credit card sales by the National Tax Service, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and there is insufficient reason to acknowledge it solely on the basis of each of the statements in the evidence of Articles 10 through 12.

⑤ Also, the Plaintiff’s pre-sale of the bachelor’s degree schedule in 2017 is opened on December 19, 2016, and the window camp was admitted on December 31, 2016, and the regular team was opened on February 3, 2017 (Evidence A6), and the regular team was opened on February 19, 2017, and the window solicitation box in 2012 and 2013, the Plaintiff’s statement of financial position cannot be viewed as having been asserted that the remainder of the tuition fee in 2012 was equal to the Plaintiff’s statement of financial position on December 30, 201 and the Plaintiff’s statement of financial position on February 2, 2013 (the Plaintiff’s statement of financial position on February 27, 2013). In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the balance of the tuition fee in 2013 cannot be seen as being equal to the Plaintiff’s statement of financial position on February 28, 2013, etc.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.