1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

From February 20, 2007, the Plaintiff operates a lodging facility (hereinafter “the instant telecom”) with the trade name “Celel” in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si B.

On July 1, 2016, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff that a tax investigation of global income tax, etc., which is subject to investigation of the taxable period from January 1, 201 to December 31, 2014, should be conducted (hereinafter “tax investigation of this case”) during the period from July 5, 2016 to August 3, 2016.

As a result of the instant tax investigation, the Central Regional Tax Office: (a) based on the data that copied the EX files in which the sales amount, expenditure amount, etc. of the instant franchise stored in the Plaintiff’s home PC were recorded (hereinafter “instant EX files”); and (b) deemed that the Plaintiff failed to report and omitted cash sales amounting to KRW 1,980,277,081 from February 2, 2011 to February 2014; and (c) notified the Defendant thereof.

On December 1, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rectification and correction of the value-added tax and the global income tax corresponding to the pertinent taxable period as follows:

On February 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On June 26, 2018, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to correct the tax base and tax amount by including the interest paid on each global income tax for the year 2011, 2012, and 2013 in the necessary expenses, as well as KRW 13,765,368,41, 4121, 440, 210,291, and 291.

Accordingly, the defendant reduced the amount of the total income tax for the year 201 to 308,743,910 won for the plaintiff, the amount of the total income tax for the year 2012 to 131,697,410 won, and the amount of the total income tax for the year 2013 to 133,61,720 won.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (if a number is available, including a number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 16, and procedural illegality of the plaintiff's assertion as to the whole of the pleadings