If the grounds for illegality are common and the legitimate procedure for the first disposition was completed, a lawsuit against the tax authority's corrective disposition can be filed immediately.

If the grounds for illegality are common between the initial disposition and the increase disposition, and the initial disposition was lawful, it is true that the tax authority may immediately file a lawsuit without going through the previous trial due to the taxpayer's suspicion that the tax authority already requested a new trial procedure on the corrective disposition having the opportunity to correct himself/herself.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

Article 21 (Determination and Correction of Value-Added Tax Act)

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of global income tax of KRW 188,467,864 as of February 1, 2007 and KRW 33,762,557 as of October 1, 2007, and imposition disposition of KRW 29,808,113 as of October 1, 2007, respectively, shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Each disposition taken by the defendant on the attached list against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of ○○○○○○○○○, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○”) as follows: (a) purchase tax invoice of KRW 240,287,020 ( KRW 187,260,261, KRW 53,026,419, KRW 397,496,71 (the supply price of KRW 2,272,967, 261, KRW 124,529, and KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 200) for the instant business establishment; and (b) for each of the instant business establishment’s supply price of KRW 397,496,71 (the supply price of KRW 2,272,961, KRW 261, KRW 124,540, and KRW 200, KRW 200 for each of the instant tax invoices and tax invoices to the Defendant.

B. As a result of the tax investigation on November 1, 2005, the director of the tax office of Seodaemun filed a complaint with the investigation agency as data, and the plaintiff notified the defendant of the taxation data that he received the tax invoice of this case without real transaction from ○○○○ ju ice. Based on the above taxation data on February 1, 2007, the defendant corrected and notified the plaintiff of value-added tax 116,305,320 won (2 period 88,317,530 won, 202 period 27,987,790 won), global income tax 34,279,490 won (261,442,960 won for year 202,82,836,530 won for year 203) (hereinafter the above disposition disposition of this case) (hereinafter the above disposition of this case).

C. The plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on June 28, 2007 after filing an objection on April 23, 2007. On December 13, 2007, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service decided and notified to the plaintiff on February 13, 2007, the disposition of imposition of value-added tax amounting to KRW 116,305,320, global income tax amounting to KRW 34,279,490, global income tax amounting to KRW 14,96,00, and salary amounting to KRW 177,55,000 paid in 202 was additionally included in necessary expenses, and the remaining claims were dismissed.

D. Meanwhile, on October 1, 2007, the Defendant corrected and notified the global income tax of KRW 33,762,557, and KRW 29,808,113 for the global income tax of KRW 2002 for the place of business.

E. The Defendant appealed and filed the instant lawsuit on March 5, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] The purport of the entire pleadings in the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 and 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① Since the instant tax invoice was received by trading the actual gold between ○○○○○ and the instant tax invoice, the instant disposition that issued on the ground that the instant tax invoice is different from the fact is unlawful.

(2) The comprehensive income tax shall be calculated by including 31,531,603 won, and 56,302,990 won paid under the pretext of meals and vehicle maintenance expenses, which have been reflected in the balance sheet, but failed to be appropriated as the expenses, in the necessary expenses.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the imposition of global income tax of KRW 33,762,557 for the Plaintiff on October 1, 2007 and the imposition of global income tax of KRW 29,808,113 for the year 2003 was filed without undergoing the truth-finding procedure prescribed in Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, is inappropriate. The instant tax invoice was prepared based on a false transaction, and thus, the part of imposition of value-added tax is justifiable.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

Article 21 (Determination and Correction of Value-Added Tax Act)

C. Determination

1) As to the legality of the claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition of global income tax amounting to KRW 188,467,864, as of February 1, 2007, among the instant lawsuit, as employee, is examined.

The Plaintiff appears to have sought the revocation of the portion of KRW 188,467,864 remaining after reduction of KRW 72,975,096 in the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 261,442,960 for the year 2002 as of February 1, 2007. However, it is reasonable to deem that the original disposition of February 1, 2007 due to the increase in the amount of KRW 188,467,864, which was remaining after reduction of KRW 72,97,00 for the Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 261,442,960 for the year

2) Of the instant lawsuit, the determination of global income tax amounting to KRW 33,762,557 as of October 1, 2007 and the determination of revocation of the disposition of global income tax amounting to KRW 29,808,113 as of October 1, 2007 is lawful.

As the plaintiff's assertion, if the grounds for illegality are common between the initial disposition (the disposition of February 1, 2007) and the increased disposition (the disposition of October 1, 2007) and the original disposition of October 1, 2007 and the original disposition of October 1, 2007 were to be legitimate, the tax authority's request for a new trial procedure against the corrective disposition of self-determination is against the taxpayer's harsh and administrative economy and the litigation economy, and thus, even if it is interpreted that the tax authority may immediately file a lawsuit without going through the previous trial procedure, it shall be lawful to file a lawsuit against the increased disposition of rectification within 90 days from the date when it became aware of the increased disposition of correction. The plaintiff received the notice of the above increased disposition of October 1, 2007 and filed the lawsuit of this case on March 8, 2008, and therefore, the part pertaining to the claim for revocation of the above disposition of global income tax, which points out the above imposition of global income tax for 33,765757 won, 2031.

3) Determination on imposition of value-added tax

A) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, on the ground that the defendant has the burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions, based on direct evidence or all the circumstances. However, if the defendant proves that the tax invoice is not false and that it is sufficient to reasonably acceptable, it is necessary to prove that it is consistent with his/her own assertion considering that the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer disputing the illegality of the defendant's disposition, is in a position to easily present evidence and materials related to the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

나) 갑 4호증 을 3, 4, 6, 10, 11호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 남대문세무서의 세무조사 결과 ○○○쥬얼 리가 2002년 2기부터 2003년 1기 사이에 거래한 지금매입처들은 대부분 자료상이거나 매입을 다른 자료상으로부터 한 것으로 밝혀진 업체인 사실, ○○○쥬얼리는 2001년 1기부터 2003년 2기 사이에 주식회사 ○○○○골드 등에게 지금을 매출하였다는 내용의 세금계산서를 교부하였으나, 위 매출처들에 대해서도 가공의 거래임을 이유로 관련 세액을 경정한 사실, 원고가 ○○○쥬얼리의 계좌에 입금한 돈은 곧바로 자료상으로 밝혀진 ○○골드시스템 주식회사, ○○금은유통 주식회사, 주식회사 ○○퀸 등의 계좌로 재차 입금된 사실, ○○○쥬얼리는 2001년 1기부터 2003년 2기까지 사이에 실물의 지금거래가 없는 100% 자료상으로 밝혀져 대표이사인 조○호가 수사기관에 고발되었으나, 그 고발사건은 현재 주소불명으로 기소중지 상태인 사실, 원고가 자신의 사업장과는 무관한 ○○은행 을지로점, ○○은행 종로3가 지점, ○○은행 종로3가 지점 (오히려 ○○○쥬얼리의 사업장과 가깝다) 등에서 ○○○쥬얼리에게 지금대금을 입금한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있는바, 위 각 인정사실에 의하면 이 사건 세금계산서는 실물 거래 없이 발행된 것으로 봄이 상당하고, 원고가 실물거래임을 증빙하기 위한 자료로 제출한 갑 3, 4, 5호증의 각 기재만으로는 이 사건 세금계산서가 실물거래에 근거한 것이라고 인정하기 어려우며 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, among the lawsuit of this case, the defendant's imposition of global income tax of 188,467,864 as of February 1, 2007, imposition of global income tax of 2002, imposition of KRW 33,762,557 as of October 1, 2007, and imposition of global income tax of 33,762,557 as of October 1, 2007, and claim for revocation of imposition of global income tax of 29,808,113 as of October 1, 2007, are dismissed, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.