Plaintiff (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys So-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The director of the Gangwon District Office (Law Firm Han, Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

April 12, 2007

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2005Guhap38239 decided August 22, 2006

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The defendant's disposition rejecting correction on February 3, 2004 on the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of February 2001 and value-added tax for the first period of January 2002 against the plaintiff and each disposition rejecting correction on February 1, 2002, value-added tax for the first period of February 3, 2002, corporate tax for the business year of 2001, and disposition rejecting correction on February 10, 2004, respectively.

1. The plaintiff shall revoke the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance. The defendant shall revoke the disposition rejecting correction as of February 10, 2004, respectively, concerning the disposition imposing corporate tax belonging to the business year 2001 and corporate tax belonging to the business year 2002 against the plaintiff.

2. Defendant: Revocation of the part against Defendant in the first instance judgment, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the above revocation portion is dismissed.

1. A cited part;

The reasoning of the court's reasoning is that the "decision on the plaintiff's additional argument" as stated in the following Paragraph 2 is added to the judgment of the court of first instance, and the "Jinman" as stated in the fourth 14th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th "in the case of "the added value created only at the supply stage" as stated below, "the added value created at the supply stage" as stated in the 8th th th th th th th "the same th th th th th th th th th th th th, 2002", and the plaintiff's side th th th th th th 2,000 th th th th th th th 2, 2002 "the plaintiff's side 2th th th th th th th th th th 2.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional argument

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of closure on October 30, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) donated the remaining office fixtures to the ○○ Foundation on October 20, 2002; (b) the indoor equipment, such as interior equipment, KRW 705,129,474, and KRW 1,018,679,032 on each account book; (c) the business of the Plaintiff was suspended due to prosecutorial investigation, etc.; (d) there was no de facto value as property; and (e) the Plaintiff donated the remaining office fixtures to the ○ Foundation; (e) the building owner arbitrarily removed or removed the corporate tax for the business year of disposal; and (e) the aggregate amount of the corporate tax on the lost office fixtures, such as corporate tax, etc. for the business year of disposal 202; and (e) the amount of the company’s business suspension due to prosecutorial investigation, etc.; and (e) the number of subscribers to each branch without permission to occupy or damage the office fixtures without permission.

B. Determination

In accordance with the statements in Gap evidence submitted by the plaintiff, there are 321,676,091 won of tools and tools, 705,129,474 won of interior equipment, and 1,018,679,032 won of interior equipment on the balance sheet and detailed statement of depreciation attached to the plaintiff's report of settlement of accounts for the business year 2002, and there is only a fact that there is no depreciation, and there is no other evidence to prove that there is no other evidence to prove that there is damage or destruction of the office equipment, donation of the office equipment, and voluntary removal or disposal of the interior equipment. Thus, the above argument by the plaintiff is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sik Kim Yong-sik