Daegu District Court 2008Guhap749 (No. 25, 2011)

National High Court Decision 2007Gu3115 (Law No. 81.09)

Fictitious dividend income from dissolution shall be calculated by subtracting the acquisition value of stocks from the transfer price.

Since it can be deemed that the original asset was invested in kind in a corporation and was a shareholder, the acquisition value of the shares should be calculated based on the objective appraised value of the asset at the time of investment in kind.

Article 17 of the Income Tax Act and Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

2011Nu1260 Revocation of imposition of global income tax

literatureA

Racing Head of the Tax Office

Daegu District Court Decision 2008Guhap749 Decided May 25, 2011

September 13, 2013

September 27, 2013

1.The judgment of the first instance, including any claims added in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

A. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the additional tax on negligent tax returns dated September 3, 2007 shall be dismissed.

B. On May 12, 2007, the part of the disposition imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on May 12, 2007, which exceeds the OOO of the global income tax assessment for the year 2003, is revoked.

C. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be three minutes, and one part shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the global income tax for the year 2003 imposed on the Plaintiff on May 12, 2007, and the disposition of imposition of the OOOO of the negligent global income tax for the year 2003 imposed on the Plaintiff on September 3, 2007 is revoked (the Plaintiff reduced the claim against the disposition of imposition as of May 12, 2007 at the trial, and added the claim against the disposition of imposition as of September 3, 2007).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) The process of establishing BB cable broadcasting companies;

1) On February 28, 1991, KimCC, PDD, EE, Han F and ParkG established a HH cable broadcasting company in OO-Gu O-dong 60-3, and appointed as a representative director, and independently operate a CATV relay broadcasting business in their respective business areas.

2) This II, the J and HaJ also operated a CATV relay broadcasting business independently in their respective business areas under the trade name of HH cable broadcasting on October 26, 1991, and were integrated into KimL, KimM and KimN and PPP cable broadcasting around July 1997, and also in their respective business areas.

3) 김CC， 신QQ， 정EE， 한FF 및 박GG의 주식회사 HHH유선방송과 김LL， 이II， 이JJ， 정MM 및 차KK， 김NN의 PPP유선방송은 1999. 3. 23. 주식회사 HHH유선방송을 중심으로 사업지역을 통합하기로 합의하고， 모든 방송신호 송출은 주식회사 HHH유선방송이 전담하며， 기존 개인사업자들은 통합 이전의 각자 사업구역별로 개인의 책임 하에 영업활동을 하기로 하고， 1999. 5. 4. 주식회사 OOPPP케이블방송(이하 '소외 법인'이라 한다)으로 상호를 변경하여 김CC 등이 각자 대표이사로 취임하였다.

4) The representative director of the non-party corporation is operated to broadcast the non-party corporation at the time of the change into the non-party corporation, and the former representative director of the non-party corporation, who had been operated independently by the non-party corporation before the incorporation into the non-party corporation, has prepared the BB cable Broadcasting Operation Agreement (the agreement includes the contracting party as a director in the above operation agreement, while the agreement represents the parties to the contract, and transfers the business rights to the non-party, the agreement is deemed to lose the qualifications of the director), and has continued to manage each place of business as personal business, with the content that the non-party corporation's representative director independently operates, without the approval or consent of the non-party corporation, with respect to all business activities such as revenue recognition, expense execution, labor and wage, and investment in facilities necessary for each location, and the management of human resources and facility.

B. The plaintiff's participation in the non-party corporation and the ownership and operation of the non-party corporation

1) On May 15, 1997, the Plaintiff established RR Broadcasting Co., Ltd. and operated a CATV relay broadcasting business independently, and participated in the said corporation when the Plaintiff was appointed as the representative director of the non-party corporation in accordance with the above business structure.

2) The representative director of the non-party corporation became the representative of each branch after completing the registration of a branch, and the plaintiff became the representative of the O branch, and as the non-party corporation was established, the representative director of the non-party corporation has returned both the personal business registration and the CATV relay broadcasting business license, and shared only the corporate tax imposed on the non-party corporation without paying individual global income tax under the CATV relay broadcasting business.

3) Meanwhile, the equity ratio for the non-party corporation is calculated by calculating the number of cable broadcasting business permits held by each individual cable broadcasting business operator (the FF is more than one person in the name of the wife, and the remaining business operators are 1/14 in total), and the equity ratio for each person was determined (1/14). On December 31, 200, the number of stocks on the register of shareholders as of December 31, 200 is 4,125 (15%) and KimN is 1,958 (7.12%, and 1,947 as of December 31, 2002). The remainder is 1,947 note (7.08%, and 1,958 share on December 31, 200).

C. Transfer of each branch of the non-party corporation’s representative and acquisition of transfer proceeds

1) After that, TT cable broadcasting companies and UU broadcast companies acquired the assets and liabilities of each branch office operated by the representative director of the non-party corporation by combining them to OO (the acquired amount of TT Cable Broadcasting Co., Ltd. is OO, and UU broadcast Co., Ltd. is OOU’s name).

2) Specifically, TT cable Broadcasting Co., Ltd. used OO on September 13, 2001, OOO on April 30, 2001, OOO, OOO, and OO on November 27, 2003, OOO on August 10, 2004, and UOO on August 10, 2004, the representative director of the non-party corporation and the representative of each branch, the Korean FF, KimCC, and E-E, and UU broadcast from this J, and UUC broadcast from this J, on November 27, 2003, while OOO and OO points were acquired from the plaintiff, the representative director of each non-party corporation, and the plaintiff, SO, and FO and ML (hereinafter referred to as "O assets transfer").

3) As above, the entire branch was sold, and the non-party corporation remains as a Dormant Company without undergoing separate liquidation procedures after reporting the closure of the branch on September 30, 2004.

D. Progress of the previous dispositions

1) On March 16, 2007, on the ground that the non-party corporation transferred its total assets, etc., but omitted at the time of filing a corporate tax return, the Defendant issued a notice of correction of the corporate tax on the non-party corporation from 2001 to 2004, and issued a disposition imposing a comprehensive income tax after disposing the transfer proceeds as bonus income to the non-party corporation's representative director, the representative director of each relevant branch, and the plaintiff, etc. who is the representative of each relevant branch, notified of changes in income amount. Among them, on May 12, 2007, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing an additional tax on the non-party corporation (including the non-indicted of the non-party corporation's additional tax on the non-payment amount) (hereinafter "the previous disposition").

2) On March 10, 2008, nine (9), a representative director of the non-party corporation, filed a lawsuit against the head of the Ulsan District Tax Office and the Ulsan District Court 2008Guhap543 on March 10, 2008 seeking revocation of the imposition of global income tax, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on August 13, 2008. Accordingly, the head of the Ulsan District Tax Office and the Ulsan District Tax Office filed an appeal with the Busan High Court 2008Nu4343 on November 11, 2009, and again filed an appeal with the Supreme Court 2009Du2219 on March 24, 2011 on which the representative of the non-party corporation received the asset transfer price for each branch of the non-party corporation’s non-party corporation and received the asset transfer price for each branch of the non-party corporation as a result of substantial dissolution of the non-party corporation’s corporation, and the above disposition was unlawful on the ground that it was a total bonus related to the above.

E. Circumstances of the instant disposition

1) On August 1, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for a trial by the National Tax Tribunal on the previous disposition of this case, and the claim was dismissed on January 9, 2008, and filed the instant lawsuit on March 13, 2008.

2) On the other hand, on September 3, 2007, the Defendant rendered a disposition to impose additional OOO on the Plaintiff on the global income tax for the year 2003 (hereinafter “instant disposition of additional tax for the failure to file a return”) (No. 48-2).

3) Upon the Supreme Court’s decision regarding related cases, the Defendant calculated the amount of dividend income calculated by subtracting the amount of KRW OOOO which is equivalent to the Plaintiff’s par value from the amount of dividend income in accordance with the contents thereof, and decided on May 9, 201 to reduce the grounds for the previous disposition of this case from the wage and salary income (including constructive dividend) to the amount of dividend, and decided to reduce the amount of KRW OOO(including the additional additional tax for non-payment) (hereinafter “the instant disposition”), and reduced the amount of KRW OO of the additional tax for non-party corporation’s additional tax for non-party corporation’s purpose.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap 1 through 38, Eul 1 through 41, 45, 52, Eul 1, 4, 47, 26, 48, and 49 (including all household numbers), and the purpose of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

3. Determination as to whether a lawsuit against the disposition on September 3, 2007 (the disposition on additional tax on negligent tax returns in this case) is lawful

The defendant imposed the additional tax on September 3, 2007 on the plaintiff on the additional tax on negligent tax returns and received the tax payment notice at that time, and on May 9, 201, the defendant rendered a decision to reduce the additional tax on negligent tax returns as OOOO won. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on March 13, 200B and sought revocation of the disposition in this case on March 13, 200, and did not seek revocation of the additional tax on negligent tax returns (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2356, Sept. 30, 205). The imposition of the additional tax on the additional tax on the subsequent tax returns is separate taxation, and it is apparent that the plaintiff added the claim for revocation of the said disposition through the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim on February 1, 2013, and the lawsuit on this part has expired, and it is unlawful.

4. Determination as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the OOO part of the disposition of this case, which was conducted in good faith for tax payment

When both principal tax and additional tax are to be imposed by a single tax payment notice, the amount of and basis for calculation of the additional tax must be stated in the tax payment notice separately (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012); and according to the evidence evidence No. 52, the defendant is found to have failed to state the type of and basis for calculation of the additional tax in the instant previous disposition imposing OOOO in addition to the principal tax, and in the instant disposition, the defendant did not state the type of and basis for calculation of the additional tax.

According to the above facts of recognition, the notice of tax payment for erroneous payment among the dispositions in this case does not have any circumstance to deem that there are defects in the entries required by the relevant statutes, and that such defects have been corrected or cured, and the disposition of tax payment is unlawful.

Therefore, the above parts must be revoked.

5. Determination as to the legitimacy of the remaining disposition (this part of this case’s disposition) other than the additional tax for insincere tax payment, among the disposition of this case

A. Whether procedural errors exist

1) As to the assertion that the instant disposition was revoked by the relevant case ruling

The plaintiff asserts that the judgment revoking the disposition of this case has become final and conclusive in the related case, and that the revocation judgment has effect on the third party, and that the disposition of this case against the plaintiff has lost its effect.

However, the plaintiff is not a party to the related case, and the disposition of this case is not subject to the judgment of the related case, and it cannot be viewed that the disposition of this case is null and void by the cancellation of the disposition of the related case (the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 83Meu202 Decided August 19, 1986 is only that the cancellation of the disposition of this case, which became the subject of the final and conclusive judgment, affects a third party in case the disposition

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) As to the assertion that a change in the reason for disposition is not permitted

The plaintiff, in the previous disposition of this case, was imposed by the defendant as earned income under Article 3 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7120 of Jan. 29, 2004, hereinafter referred to as the "former Income Tax Act") in the previous disposition of this case, but the reason for the disposition was changed to be taxed as deemed income under Article 17 (1) 3 of the same Act in the previous disposition of this case. The disposition of this case and the previous disposition of this case are different from the basic facts of taxation, so the change of the reason for disposition is not allowed, and therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

The subject matter of a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition is objective existence of the tax base and amount of tax recognized by the tax authority’s disposition, and the tax authority may exchange and change the grounds for disposition within the scope that maintains the identity of the disposition in order to support the legitimacy of the tax base and amount of tax recognized in the disposition, even during the proceeding of the lawsuit, until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court, and the tax authority’s assertion of only the source of income within the scope of global income subject to cumulative taxation in order to support the legitimacy of the disposition imposing global income tax constitutes a change within the scope that maintains the identity of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du1682, Mar. 28, 200; 200Du2181, Mar. 12, 2002)

In light of the above legal principles, (i) bonus income and deemed dividend income are different in terms of the income tax law, but they are imposed as global income. (ii) The previous disposition in this case and the disposition in this case are imposed on UU Broadcasting Co., Ltd. in consideration of the Plaintiff’s transfer of OO's assets and taxation on the receipt of transfer proceeds. In order to support the legitimacy of the previous disposition in this case, the basic facts of the previous disposition in this case and the disposition in this case are the same, and the changes in the reason for disposition are allowed in the scope of global income subject to cumulative taxation in order to support the legitimacy of global income detailed disposition.

Therefore, it is legitimate for the Defendant to change the reason for disposal from the instant disposition to the income constructive dividend, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is not reasonable.

3) Regarding the assertion that the liquidation income tax should be first determined in order to calculate the constructive dividend income, the Plaintiff asserts that in order to impose the income tax on the constructive dividend under the Income Tax Act, it is necessary to determine the corporate liquidation income tax under the corporate tax law as a prior disposition, and that the income tax should be calculated based on the amount of residual property distributed in the taxation

(1) However, Article 17 (2) 3 of the former Income Tax Act only provides that the amount of deemed dividend is the amount exceeding the acquisition value of the stocks of the dissolved corporation from the amount of profit acquired through the distribution of remaining assets through dissolution, and does not provide that the liquidation income under the Corporate Tax Act should be first determined and calculated, and (2) the provision of the Corporate Tax Act which provides for liquidation income under the Corporate Tax Act (Article 79) provides that corporate tax shall be imposed on the liquidation income of the dissolved corporation, and there is no ground to view that the provision for calculating the amount of deemed dividend income under the Income Tax Act is only a provision for corporate tax on the liquidation income of the dissolved corporation and there is no provision for calculating the amount of deemed dividend income under the Income Tax Act.

4) Regarding the assertion that there was an error in the failure to issue a tax notice on the instant disposition, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition was unlawful since the Defendant did not issue a tax notice on the instant disposition under Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act and only issued an ex officio correction notice.

A disposition of reduction or revision is a beneficial administrative disposition that revokes a part of the initial tax disposition, but it takes effect as a matter of principle because it is a beneficial administrative disposition that has the other party. However, where a disposition of reduction or revision has been taken, it is merely a new tax obligation on the balance, but it has the effect of cancelling part of the initial tax disposition. A disposition of reduction or revision has legal effect as to the part of the tax amount reduced thereby. Therefore, a disposition of reduction or revision is not separate from the initial disposition, but is merely a change in the initial disposition, and the cancellation of a disposition is not a special form, and it is done only by a tax payment notice, and it is done by a method that can objectively inform the intent of cancellation, such as new disposition based on the premise of cancellation of the disposition, barring special circumstances, if a taxpayer is notified of it as well as by a method that can objectively know the intent of correction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da9137, Apr. 11, 2003).

Since the instant previous disposition is a reduction or correction disposition of the instant previous disposition, it is sufficient as a written notification (ex officio correction notification) and there is no need to serve a new tax payment notice.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Whether the instant disposition is unlawful in substance

1) The legal nature and scope of the Plaintiff’s income

The Plaintiff’s receipt of the asset transfer price for the OO branch of a non-party corporation is due to the substantial dissolution of the non-party corporation, and only the amount exceeding the acquisition price of the Plaintiff’s shares out of that price can be deemed as the dividend (the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 2009Du22119 Decided March 24, 201).

2) Amount of dividend income

A) The parties’ assertion

① Plaintiff’s assertion

Since the plaintiff transferred the assets of the O branch to the amount lower than the acquisition price of the shares of the non-party corporation owned by the plaintiff, there is no dividend income.

② Defendant’s assertion

The plaintiff transferred the O branch of the non-party corporation, received OOO won in return, and the acquisition value of the shares shall be regarded as OOO won in accordance with Article 17 (4) of the former Income Tax Act, unless the plaintiff proves it. As such, the plaintiff's dividend income is OOO won (OOO-OOOO won), and the legitimate tax amount is OOO won (including the additional tax for non-payment.).

B)Calculation of the transfer price of assets;

"The plaintiff transferred the assets of OO points to UU Broadcasting Co., Ltd. on November 27, 2003 (hereinafter "UUU Broadcasting") and received the OOO won in accordance with Gap evidence No. 27, and the plaintiff thereafter returned the OO won to UU Broadcasting on February 6, 2004 due to lack of 5C wire capacity (the 435,010m of 5C wire capacity was corrected to 363,582m in 363,582m), so it is recognized that the plaintiff returned the OO won (the defendant asserted that the transfer price received by the plaintiff was a confession of the OOO, and the fact that the plaintiff returned the OO is a separate fact that is compatible with the facts established prior to the confession, and that it does not have the effect of confession. However, according to the evidence that is not so established, the plaintiff's confession is invalid as it goes against the plaintiff's assets acquisition price, and the plaintiff's confession can be cancelled.

(1) Assets invested by the Plaintiff

(A) According to the above facts, the plaintiff integrated the RR Broadcasting Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "RR Broadcasting") it operated on July 1, 199 and acquired the shares of the non-party corporation, and the acquisition price of the shares owned by the plaintiff is the value of the RR Broadcasting as of July 1, 199.

(B) The plaintiff alleged that he additionally invested OOO in cash in order to acquire 1st,947 shares of the non-party corporation, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact of investment only with Gap evidence No. 46-1, and there is no other evidence to prove it, and the above assertion is not accepted.

(C) In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the RR Broadcasting was integrated into a non-party corporation, and that the Plaintiff made an additional investment for the installation of the light cable network, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff made an additional investment in the Plaintiff’s personal funds, and there is no other evidence, and the said assertion is without merit.

(2) The value of the assets of the RR Broadcasting

(A) According to Gap evidence No. 47-1 and evidence No. 47-1 and evidence No. 47 witness ParkV, and UUU broadcast requested a certified public accountant ParkV to assess the appropriate acquisition price of O branch assets in order to take over the O branch of the non-party corporation, and ParkV, on November 25, 2003, considering that the old network installed before RR broadcast was integrated into the non-party corporation, the reasonable acquisition price was calculated by multiplying the new acquisition price of the network at the time of the evaluation by the residual value rate of six years before the year following the date of the initial acquisition of the network, and the new network established in 2000 after the incorporation into the non-party corporation, which was established in the non-party corporation, is recognized to have been calculated at an appropriate acquisition price based on the actual purchase price or estimated price, and the RV's asset value at the time of the acquisition of the stocks of the non-party corporation, as of July 1, 199.

(B) According to the results of the fact-finding on ParkV in the current case, and if the value of the Gu network calculated in the above evaluation report of ParkV is evaluated again as of July 1, 1999, the time when the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s stocks, it is recognized that it is an OOO (the amount taking into account both the material unit price and installation cost, investment cost, and loss gains).

However, the above evaluation report is to calculate the maximum number of prices for reference when concluding an asset transfer contract in consideration of the sales progress of the seller, interest cost, etc. in addition to the residual value of the assets (the cost of the remaining materials and installation cost due to the past training), and the opportunity cost of the buyer's new investment and the buyer's new investment.

In addition, according to Gap evidence 38 and Eul evidence 45, and according to the request for UU Broadcasting, it is also recognized that the above evaluation report was reflected by the purchaser's evaluation of the opportunity cost at the time of the installation of direct equipment without purchasing the assets and the testimony that the seller's asset value is not evaluated. In the audit report of 2003 for UUU Broadcasting, it is also recognized that the UUU broadcast included OOOO as the fair value of the acquired assets among the total value of the assets acquired assets of the branch offices of the non-party corporation and included the rest of OOOO as the goodwill.

In light of the above circumstances, the evaluation price of the base on July 1, 1999 as the result of the fact-finding, as of July 1, 199, cannot be seen as the objective value of the old network immediately, and there is no evidence to recognize the above network’s price as the OOO value.

(C) However, among the price factors of the above fact-finding results, the price factors considered in terms of opportunity costs (sales closing, interest costs incurred from the buyer's new investment, and loss business profits) are calculated again, and the price of the former network (RR broadcast asset) is calculated again, as shown in the attached asset value table, and the OOOO (which shall be calculated by multiplying the material unit price, installation cost, and quantity by the unit price of the result of the fact-finding inquiry, and shall be calculated by multiplying by the unit price, installation cost, and quantity, and 435,010 square meters by 363,582 meters, and the above amount can be considered as the objective asset price of the network, and the acquisition price of the Plaintiff's shares is recognized as the OO.

(3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(A) The defendant, as a certified public accountant, and ParkV, filed a national tax appeal on behalf of the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff, asserts that ParkV's above evaluation report and testimony at the trial are not reliable.

According to the evidence No. 36, and evidence No. 46, and evidence No. 36, and ParkV filed a national tax appeal seeking revocation of the previous disposition on behalf of the plaintiff.

However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively integrating the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence 27, 28, 37, 37, 47, and 54, and ParkV's above evaluation report (Evidence A47-1) can be recognized as being made at the time of the transfer transaction of the assets in this case, and since the above evaluation report of ParkV's above evaluation report was made at the request of UUU broadcast to take over the OO branch, it is rare that the OO's asset value was excessive, and the above evaluation report did not include the asset value of the business. In light of the fact that considering the fact that the business license right of relay cable broadcasting is expected to expire on December 31, 2003, the asset value evaluation of the above evaluation report is not accepted. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

① In order to acquire the assets of a non-party corporation, UU broadcasting, etc. requested the Z accounting corporation to inspect the details and quantity of each branch’s assets, and certified public accountants ParkV requested to assess the appropriate acquisition price of each branch’s assets, and requested an accounting corporation Y to examine whether the assets owner of each branch is a non-party corporation or not or is the representative of each branch’s individual (each of the statements in Gap No. 37 and 38).

② Accordingly, as of October 31, 2003, the Z accounting corporation examined the existence and completeness of the quantity of assets of the O branch of the non-party corporation as of October 31, 2003, and prepared a review report on the OO branch cable network and related accessory facilities on November 2003 (No. 47 evidence 2).

③ On November 25, 2003, ParkV prepared an evaluation report for calculating the reasonable acquisition price of assets at the OO branch based on the content and quantity of assets of the above review report prepared by the Z accounting corporation (A) on November 25, 2003.

④ Under the review report on the judgment of the parties to the transaction prepared on December 3, 2003 (Evidence No. 28), Y of the accounting firm: (a) stated the actual inspection amount of the O branch's assets as OOOOOOO, attached [Attachment 12] attached a list of asset companies and the specifications of fixed assets by branch; (b) the unit price and quantity of the O branch's assets stated in the above separate sheet (Evidence No. 54) coincide with the unit price and quantity of the materials in the above assessment report prepared by ParkV; and (c) the amount calculated by multiplying the unit price and quantity of the actual amount of the report prepared by ParkV by the unit price and quantity of the materials in the above assessment report prepared by OV; and (d) the lower-class total contract is the initial transfer price of the asset transfer of this case.

(5) The Plaintiff and UUV’s asset value is suspected of having determined the purchase price based on the asset value assessed by ParkV (No. 26).

On the other hand, there is a transfer and takeover contract between the non-party corporation's OO and UU broadcast to the effect that the purchase price was determined based on the number of subscribers to pay television at OO points (No. 7). However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff returned the price due to the shortage in the quantity of O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O (No. 7). As seen earlier, there is a possibility that the price was determined based on the number of subscribers for convenience, and the transfer and takeover contract (No. 26) is likely to obstruct the credibility of the above evaluation report in light of the above circumstances.

(B) In addition, the defendant, and the OO branch's assets are not the plaintiff, but the plaintiff was the representative director, and even if the plaintiff was the 100% shareholder of the TR broadcast, the acquisition value of the shares held by the plaintiff is merely an OO group in total of the value of the shares held by the above company and the acquisition value of shares held by the non-party corporation and the OO group's shares acquired by the non-party corporation.

According to the statements in Eul and Eul evidence 29 and 30, and around May 15, 1997, the plaintiff established a RR Broadcasting Corporation at OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-type 1166-18 and operated a relay broadcasting business independently, and it is recognized that the plaintiff acquired the shares of the non-party corporation after the RR Broadcasting Corporation was incorporated into the non-party corporation on July 1, 1999 and became a shareholder. According to the above facts, the plaintiff can be viewed as investing the assets of the RR Broadcasting acquired after dissolution of the corporation in kind in the non-party corporation and became a shareholder of the non-party corporation, and there is no reason for the defendant's above assertion.

D) Dividend income

Therefore, the dividend income earned by the Plaintiff due to the transfer of the assets of this case is an OOO personnel who deducts the acquisition value of the stocks owned by the Plaintiff from the OOO personnel for the transfer of assets.

(c) Calculation of justifiable taxes;

Since the principal tax of global income tax for the year 2003 calculated again based on the dividend income OOO source is OOO won as stated in the attached tax calculation statement, and the portion exceeding the above OOO won among the comprehensive income tax following the disposition in this case should be revoked.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case as to the additional tax on negligent tax returns on September 3, 2007 is unlawful and dismissed, and the other claim on global income tax on May 12, 2007 shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition as well as without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance by accepting the defendant's appeal partially, and it is so decided as per Disposition.