Evidence of the Certificate

In the written confirmation, it is difficult to deem that the details of each deposit of the corporation account and personal account amount and each cash sales omitted by taxable period and place of business are insufficient or not based on facts.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition of imposing corporate tax and value-added tax on November 6, 2008 to the plaintiff in the attached Form 1 and the list No. 1 of the attached tax and value-added tax for each business year and each taxable period No. 458, 2008.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 1, 2002, the Plaintiff is a company manufacturing household from the Daegu Suwon-gu BB Dong, Daegu-gu, and has two branches, such as inner branch and new store, and the Plaintiff’s representative director KimA operates three business places of personal name and one business place in the name of his/her father and wife in Seoul and Incheon.

B. From August 21, 2008 to September 18, 2008, the director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff and KimA, and as a result, confirmed KRW 561,180,225 of the Plaintiff’s shortage of sales and notification of the result to the Defendant as taxation data, and notified the Plaintiff of the result of the investigation and the Defendant as taxation data, through the accounting account in the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “corporate account”) and the KimA’s personal account (hereinafter “individual account”) through the accounting account in the Plaintiff’s name.

C. On November 6, 2008, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of each corporate tax and value-added tax amount, such as the entry in the separate sheet No. 1 and the list No. 2 of the corporate tax and the value-added tax, to the Plaintiff.

D. On February 4, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on February 4, 2009. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service, on July 9, 2009, re-examineed 127 copies of the customer management card presented by the Plaintiff as to whether the omission of sales by the Plaintiff’s representative director in sales at the place of business operated by the KimA, among the omission of sales at the place of business operated by the Plaintiff’s representative director, and made a decision to dismiss the remainder.

E. Accordingly, the director of Daegu Regional Tax Office re-examines 127 copies of the customer management card submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff’s request for examination, and recognized 37 cases as the income amount of individual business, and decided to reduce corporate tax and value-added tax as stated in the separate list of corporate tax and value-added tax (hereinafter “the remaining part of the disposition of this case”) as stated in the separate list of corporate tax and value-added tax.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 7, Eul evidence l through 7

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In principle, the defendant bears the burden of proving the omission of sales as the ground for the disposition of this case. The defendant prepared a certificate used as the ground for the disposition of this case without any choice on the defendant's bage that it may be accused pursuant to the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the part of the amount calculated as the omission of sales in the plaintiff's personal place of business is different from the facts, such as the omission of sales in the individual place of business, and cannot be used as evidence for taxation. There is no other evidence to recognize that the amount deposited in the individual account is the plaintiff's amount of sales, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the amount deposited in the individual account is the plaintiff's amount of sales, from January 2003 to February 2004, the amount of cash sales reported by the plaintiff is not deducted from the amount of individual deposit, and the amount of cash sales reported by the plaintiff can be converted into the value of supply. Thus,

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office may acknowledge the fact that the Daegu Regional Tax Office conducted an integrated investigation into the corporation and the individual business place of the Plaintiff and the KimA individual business place during the taxable period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 207, and confirmed the omission of the corporation’s sales through the Daegu Bank account in the name of the KimA individual, and conducted an investigation by expanding the scope of investigation into the taxable period in 2003-204 to the taxable period in 2004 and the first taxable period in 2008, and the Plaintiff’s representative director and KimAA prepared and submitted a confirmation document (Evidence No. 3) stating that each omission of sales in the Plaintiff and the individual business place of the Plaintiff and the KimA individual business place calculated through the said investigation process.

(2) If a tax authority received a confirmation from a taxpayer that a certain portion of a transaction is the processing transaction in the course of a tax investigation, it cannot readily deny the evidence of the confirmation unless there are special circumstances, such as that the confirmation was drafted compulsorily against the intent of the originator, or it is difficult to consider it as evidence of specific facts due to lack of the content thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002; 2005Du12589, Feb. 24, 2006). Accordingly, there is no evidence to prove that the above confirmation was made compulsorily against the intent of KimA, the document deposited in KimA’s personal account was not the omission of the Plaintiff’s sales, but the omission of sales at the individual workplace, and even if the amount of tax was corrected for such reason, it is difficult to view that there was no evidence of taxation omission or omission of each item of the Plaintiff’s personal account and each item of cash sales.

(3) In an administrative litigation to which the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act apply mutatis mutandis, the burden of proof has been distributed among the parties in accordance with the general principles of civil procedure and has the burden of proving the legitimacy of the pertinent disposition based on the nature of the appeal litigation. However, in the case where the defendant proves that the legitimacy of the pertinent disposition can be reasonably acceptable, the disposition is justifiable and the defendant bears the responsibility for the plaintiff, who is the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu124, Jul. 24, 1984). Thus, in light of the fact that the plaintiff omitted sales from corporateization and personal account, and that the Daegu Regional Tax Office confirmed the omission of the plaintiff's detailed sales from KimA for each taxable period, it is hard to find that the defendant has proved double taxation as to the omission of the plaintiff's sales and the omission of sales. Therefore, it is difficult to establish double taxation as the plaintiff's assertion that double taxation has been made for a period of time from 1st to 2003 to 204.

3. Conclusion

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