Whether it is possible to request a refund in different business year from the business year when filing a report on corporate tax;

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff has invested the report, and even if the plaintiff's assertion is true, it is necessary to dispute the legitimacy by the claim for refund, and it is not possible to apply for a tax credit for different business years at will.

Article 60 of the Corporate Tax Act:

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 4,831,080 against the plaintiff on June 1, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4, 5, and Eul evidence 1:

A. On February 26, 2003, when the Plaintiff filed corporate tax for the business year 2002, the Plaintiff reported that the amount should be deducted as other deductible tax (hereinafter referred to as "tax credit amount in this case") as stated below on the ground that the Plaintiff did not receive the above amount on the wind recognized as the return after the deadline of 3,585,490 won (33,050 won in the business year 1999 + 3,552,370 won in the business year 2000 +) as corporate tax for the business year 199 and 2000.

Details of the beginning report of the political party (unit: Won)

Tax Base

calculated tax amount ①

Additional Tax Amount ②

Total final tax amount â……

(1) + 2

Income Tax Amount

(4)

Voluntary Tax Amount

(5)

Other deductible tax amount

(6)

Amount of deducted tax

-No.4-N.)

36,808,390

4,417,006

1,029,498

5,446,504

9,800

-1,434,967

3,585,490

3,286,181

B. The Defendant issued a notice of correction of KRW 4,831,080 for the business year of 2002, which calculated on June 16, 2006, by deeming the Plaintiff not to deduct the said deductible tax amount as stated in the following correction statement, on the grounds that the instant deductible tax amount was not related to the deductible items for the pertinent business year (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Details of correction.

(unit: Won)

Tax Base

calculated tax amount ①

Additional Tax Amount ②

Total final tax amount â……

(1) + (2)

Payment at Source

D. Tax Amount

Voluntary Payment

v. tax amount

Other deductions

[Amount of Tax]

No. Retroactive Tax Amount

(3-No.4-N.)

Original Tax Amount

(8)

Amount of tax notified after deduction

(No. Do.)

36,808,390

4,417,006

2,275,097

6,692,103

9,800

-1,434,967

0

8,117,270

3,286,181

4,831,089

C. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on July 31 of the same year on June 20, 2006. The National Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on November 8, 2006.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On March 30, 2001, the Plaintiff invested the Plaintiff’s tax base and tax amount return for the business year 2000 in the office of the Defendant’s tax office, and the said return was not processed, and the Plaintiff filed a return on the corporate tax for the business year 2000. The Plaintiff filed a return after deducting the deductible tax amount of KRW 3,585,490, which was not refundable due to the crisis, from the amount of other deductible tax at the time of filing the corporate tax return for the business year 2002. The Defendant’s disposition imposing corporate tax in this case was improper because the burden of proving the return on corporate tax is attributable to the taxpayer. Accordingly, the Plaintiff may deduct the deductible tax amount at the

(b) Related statutes;

○ Article 60 of the Corporate Tax Act:

(1) A domestic corporation liable for tax payment shall report the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax on income for the concerned business year to the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment within three months from the end

(2) The documents under each of the following subparagraphs shall be attached to the report under the provisions of paragraph (1):

1. Balance sheets, income statements, or statements of appropriation of earned surplus (or statements of losses) prepared by applying mutatis mutandis corporate accounting standards;

2. The tax settlement invoice prepared under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as the "tax settlement invoice"); and

3. Other documents prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(3) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall also apply where a domestic corporation has no income or has losses for each business year.

(4) Where the documents under paragraph (2) 1 and 2 are not attached to a report under the provisions of paragraph (1), it shall not be deemed a report under this Act: Provided, That this shall not apply to a non-profit domestic corporation which is not operating a profit-making business under the provisions of Article 3 (2) 1 and 6.

(5) Where there are deficiencies or errors in the report or other documents submitted pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), the chief of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment and the Commissioner of the Local Tax Service may request them to

○ Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act, Decision and Correction

(1) Where a domestic corporation fails to report pursuant to Article 60, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Local Tax Service shall determine the tax base and amount of corporate tax on income

(2) Where a domestic corporation which has reported pursuant to Article 60 falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Local Tax Service shall correct the corporate tax base

1. Where there are errors or omissions in the contents of the report;

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the following facts in light of the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4-1, 2, and 3 of the evidence Nos. 4.

(1) The corporate tax return submitted by the Plaintiff for the 1999 business year includes the same amount of income and net income as KRW 27,735,00,000, which deducts the tax base of KRW 76,525,000 for losses carried forward from this amount as KRW 0,00 for '3,050 for '3,050 for 'the already paid tax', and the date of filing the corporate tax base and tax amount on March 15, 200.

In addition, the cumulative loss amount is 50,90,565 won in the corporate tax return for the business year 2000, and the tax base of 1,544,100 won in interim tax prepayment and 2,008,270 won in total shall be 3,552,370 won in the payable tax amount.

(2) However, in the National Tax Service’s integrated computer network, the Plaintiff’s report is deemed to have been filed on July 31, 2002 with respect to the corporate tax for the pertinent business year after the lapse of March 31, 200, each time limit for filing each report, with respect to corporate tax for the business year 1999, and the corporate tax for the business year 2000, respectively.

D. Determination

With respect to whether the Plaintiff reported the corporate tax for the business year 199 and 2000 by each due date, it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff reported the corporate tax for the business year 199 and 2000 by each due date only by the descriptions of the Health Team, Gap evidence 2, and Gap evidence 3-1 through 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Even if the plaintiff's assertion is true, it is necessary for the plaintiff to apply for a refund of the national tax for the corporate tax of 1999 and 2000 business year under Article 51 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and to receive the refund, and the tax credit amount of this case can not be included in the corporate tax and other deductible tax amount for the business year 2002.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

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