It is not recognized that the period of income disposition belongs to a criminal judgment different from that of the criminal judgment.

The time when the disposition of income reverts shall follow the result of the criminal judgment.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2014Guhap3358 Notice of Change in Amount of Income

AAAAAAAA, a corporation

The director of the tax office

November 7, 2014

January 9, 2015

1. The change in the amount of income stated in the attached Form 3 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on January 29, 2013.

Of the notification, "207 business year (income earner: BB, income amount: 250,000,000)" shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

On January 29, 2013, the Defendant’s notice of change in the income amount stated in attached Form 3, which was given to the Plaintiff, is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that newly constructs and sells multi-family housing after acquiring the project site after being established on April 11, 2006.

B. On May 8, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the CCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC”) and the CCC (hereinafter “OOO-dong OO-dong Construction”) for the removal of buildings and the disposal of waste (hereinafter “instant construction”). The CCC Tax office notified the Defendant of the taxation data that “the Plaintiff received rebates of KRW 00,000 won (OO-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

D. Accordingly, the defendant, on the ground that "the plaintiff received rebates fromCC for the business year 2007 and listed billion won in the business year 2008, and went out of the company", included the above amount in the gross income, and on the ground that "the amount received in the business year 2007 was reverted to BB", "the remaining amount of KRW 00 million received in the business year 2007, and the amount of KRW 00 million received in the business year 2008 is unclear" as the other income of BB, "the other amount of KRW 000,000 received in the business year 2007, and the other amount of KRW 00,000 received in the business year 208 is unclear" was disposed of as the bonus of DD, the representative director, and on January 29, 2013, notified the change in the amount of income as stated

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on April 29, 2013, but the tax court on November 19, 2013.

The decision of dismissal was made by the personnel board.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to KRW 00 million disposed of to BB

① According to the criminal judgment regarding O andOO0 won: (a) as at the time of the instant construction contract, it is recognized that “B agreed to return KRW 00 million out of the construction cost of the Plaintiff and the OO00 won to EE (hereinafter “EE”) that DD is the representative director, and accordingly, paid KRW 00,000 to the FFF (hereinafter “FF”) designated by EE, it is not the Plaintiff’s income.

② According to the criminal judgment regarding KRW O00,000: “BB received money and valuables from FF on August 21, 2007 under the pretext of arranging matters pertaining to the duties of the head of the OO, after receiving only KRW O00,000,000 from the check from F on August 21, 2007.” As such, the check O0,000,000 won on August 15, 2007 (the Defendant, unlike the criminal judgment, specified as August 15, 2007) was attributed to BB, and is not the Plaintiff’s income.

(2) As to KRW 00 million disposed of to DD

Considering the fact that the statements of GG, HH and III, the Customer Director, the Director of On-Site, and the current status of acceptance position, etc. submitted in criminal cases, are unilaterally made out by the person concerned, and they are not reliable, and that OE constitutes “D or BB paid money under the pretext of rebates.” As such, OE’s statements are not trustable, and there was no objective flow of funds to the extent that they can be seen as corporate funds, such as rebates deposits in the Plaintiff’s account, and BB decided to return KRW 100 million out of the construction cost OE through an agreement with EE, and that BB was not the Plaintiff’s income. Even if OB is the Plaintiff’s income, BB did not receive the above money from the JJ (JJJ) and 100 million out of the Republic of Korea, and thus, the Plaintiff did not take into account the fact that JJ 1300 million won out of the Republic of Korea and 2D (JJJ 1601).

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Status, etc. of DD

(A)DD was a representative director of EE, and held 100% of EE issued stocks. EE had 42% of the shares by disposing of 51% of the shares issued by the Plaintiff around 2007, in order to promote the OO project (Seoul OOO-dong OOO-dong OO-dong OOO-dong OO-dong OO-dong OO-O-OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-type 2 residential areas).

(B) ADD was employed as the representative director of the Plaintiff from the time of establishment of the Plaintiff, and retired on April 13, 2009. However, according to the corporate register, the registration of retirement was completed on July 6, 201.

(2) The related person's statement

(A) On November 4, 2011, BB made a statement at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office as follows:

○ The instant contract for construction was arranged and received KRW 00,000,000 from the check as a brokerage fee.

On May 15, 2007, ○CC remitted only KRW O orOOO to the F’s account. The principal received the said money and used it as a full payment or cost of living. The receipt of the FF account is due to the fact that CC entrusted F with the construction of school classroom subjects to F, and that it was required to have a tax invoice in order to pay the said money.

○CC shall handle only the OOOO paid out of the F’s account, not from the Plaintiff’s account, as a separate FF accounting account, and if it fails to do so, it shall have returned only the OOO to the Plaintiff, but it may not have been so processed.

On August 21, 2007, the Plaintiff received KRW 0000,000 fromCC as a check. This was paid from GGG for the instant construction project, and was used for the repayment of living expenses and debt.

○ There is no money in addition to the above KRW 00 million. It is not known that cash O or OO only won is not known.

(B) On November 22, 2011, November 29, 2011, and December 1, 2011, 201, BB, a representative director of EE, and the Plaintiff’s representative director, made each of the following statements at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office.

November 22, 2011

○ From April 20, 2006 to June 29, 2011, the Plaintiff served as the representative director.

○ original, KKK (hereinafter referred to as “KK”) initially received KRW 00 million and performed the removal services. However, the vice president of LL, who is the president of OOOOO, changed the removal services to the company he recommended, and it is difficult to refuse to reject the request. Since there is KK, the entire removal works could not be reduced. Ultimately, the CC and KR recommended by MM were entered into a contract with each O00 million won. However, there are many complaints, and MPM also changed to the fund to support the head of OOO. Accordingly, the instant construction contract was concluded in the total amount of KRW 00,000,000,000.

Since the Plaintiff’s design cost was difficult to increase as at the time of the Plaintiff’s own increase, the amount of construction cost was increased by KRW 00 million toCC. On July 25, 2007, KRW 000,000 received fromCC, and KRW 00,000,000 from January 208, 200, it was received fromCC as an assistance toCC. However, the remainder (the amount of KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000 on August 21, 2007, and KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000 around February 2, 2008) is not a low-income.

Of the O00 million won received from ○CC, the JJ paid the cost of design to NN, and the cost of KRW 100 million was paid to NN at the design service cost.

Any statement made by the court on November 29, 201

○○M was believed to have brought about KRW KRW 0000,000 fromCC on the pretext of water and KRW 00,000, and later, it became known that it would have brought about KRW 00,000.

Statements made by the court on December 1, 2011

At the first time, the contract amount of removal works with K was about KRW 00 million, and at the time of concluding a contract again, the amount of KRW 00 million increased.CC that has been awarded half of the contract amount has also been increased to KRW 00 million, so it was within the scope of the increase of KRW 00,000, and low-income executive was returned to the service cost, and the amount of KRW 00,000 out of the remainder was demanded through the vice president of LL as personnel management for MM. Before being investigated, MM was known to have received KRW 00,00 or KRW 00,000,000,000 or KRW 00,000,000 won was confirmed, and that it was only about KRW 00,000,000 or KRW 00,000.

○B got O00,000 O,000,000 won fromCC, and most of them were MM received.

(C) On January 7, 2013, HH, which was a business director ofCC, stated in the Mayang Tax Office as follows.

○ In relation to the instant construction project, an owner of the construction project and a general manager of the management thereof were assigned.

○ The introduction of BB led to the instant construction work.

On May 8, 2007, the Plaintiff, KK, andCC entered into a contract for work on May 8, 2007. The contract amount is total of KRW 00 million (excluding value added tax) and KK andCC were awarded contracts each by 50%.

The Plaintiff paid the O billion won (excluding value-added tax) toCC and paid the progress payment according to the monthly performance results. On July 5, 2007, the Plaintiff received KRW 00 million from the Plaintiff on September 20, 2007, KRW O000, KRW O000, KRW O000 on September 50, 2007, and the amount received on July 5, 2007 is the down payment, and the amount received on September 20, 2007 is the down payment.

After the conclusion of the instant construction contract, K andCC entered into a joint supply and demand agreement, andCC subcontracted the construction work to K.

Before the conclusion of the contract, the Plaintiff’s “CC construction cost” of the vice president of the LL, at the request of the Plaintiff, set the contract amount as KRW 00 million. The contract amount was set at KRW 00 million. While the Plaintiff and the LL were verbally agreed, the side contract was not written, and the time when the return was received was demanded separately by the Plaintiff.

○CC judged this request as the direction of the Chairperson, the representative of the Plaintiff, and agreed to pay the O00 million won after the contract for construction.

At the request of the ○B, the F shall transfer F KRW 50 million to the JJ requested by the KJ, and the cash KRW 00 million to the JJ requested by the KJ, and the cash KRW 00,000,000 to the PP president after receiving processing tax invoices and delivering funds to the PP president, and the third vice president ofCC delivered to the BB. The 100,000,000 won was requested by the LL by telephone to deliver them to the branch of DD, and the principal directly delivered them to the branch of DD.

○○○ KRW O00,000 paid to BB is to deliver directly to the Plaintiff by BB, and the principal received processed tax invoices after confirming them by wire to the vice president of LL and then delivered them to the financial team in cash. It is memory that three vice presidents were paid from the financial team.

around 2008, the O00 billion won delivered to the branch of the DD was delivered in cash in the shopping bags at the OOO hotel ground parking lot. The name of the delivered person and the Handphone number are not memory.

(D) On November 29, 2011, the LLL, the vice president of the EE, was stated in the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, and on January 10, 2013, in the Southern Seodaemun Island, as follows:

Any statement made by the court on November 29, 201

○ The construction contract of this case was concluded again by disregarding the contract agreement entered into with K, which is the existing removal company, was introduced by the MM Chairperson, and the contractor acquired 51% of the shares of the contractor and participated in the management, and changed by satisfying the requirements for the removal work.K was a simple removal company, and it was a company that can transport and treat wastes.

To report to ○CC and DoD that it would conclude the instant construction contract, and ordered MF to order 250 million won as high cost.

○ From the date of the conclusion of the instant construction contract, “JJ is unable to make a direct payment for the grant of money.” To this end, it is said that “WJ grants money to BB and grants money to BB.” This is that MM is transferred to BB. This is that MM first introduced the removal company to the principal, and thereafter, BB was found after the introduction of MM, and thus, in fact, it was introduced by MM.

○ himself had never known that he would bring O or OO only to F or bring O or O00 won in cash to F.

○ BB appears to be the representative of MM.

○ The first cost increase in the O00 billion won, and the O00 billion won increased in the O00 won, it was considered that the executive company has the authority within the scope of the O00 won. Therefore, although the promise was not from the beginning, the executive company demanded the amount of the O00 million won and received it from the side of the executive company, and the O00O andO00 won were known to the chairperson of the CC, and the final decision was made by DD.

If the construction of this case is transferred in accordance with the request of the president of ○M, it was intended to assist in the implementation of the OO in the process of exercising pressure on the head of OO through MM.

Statements made by the court on January 10, 201

around March 2006, EE entered into an urban development project operation agreement with OOOOO association, met the conditions of authorization after the implementation of an urban development project, and performed an urban development project in full scale from around 2007.

○ 당시 EEE이 시행사인 원고의 시행대행을 맡은 주식회사 QQQQQQQQ의 업무를 주관하였고, 본인은 EEE의 부사장으로 실무업무를 수행하였다.

○ EE entered into the instant construction project contract with KK in around 2005, and subsequently, K entered into a contract with KK to jointly supply and demand the pertinent license without a waste disposal business license.

BB engaged in the removal business and entered into a contract by introducingCC.

In 2007, all companies received estimates from four companies for the execution of this contract, and the board of directors set the removal cost as KRW 6 billion and concluded the contract with KRW 00 million.

Before the conclusion of the contract, the Corporation requested HH directors to provide funds necessary for the Company by the direction of the DD prior to the conclusion of the contract, and the O00 won was requested to provide funds to the HH directors so that it can be requested at the necessary time.

○CC paid to FF KRW O0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

○○ O000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,00000

○ KRW 100 million paid to the JJJ was required to pay to EE, however, to demand payment in lieu ofCC in financial situation.

○ KRW 00 million paid by DD to the branch, is a direction that DD calls to the principal for urgent cooperation withCC. The last part is known as the service cost related to the instant project.

(3) Relevant judgment

(A) On April 2, 2012, 2012, BB made the president of the Seoul Central District Court (2012Dahap403) to “GG, the representative director ofCC,” and proposed that “The president may order the EE to take out the removal work from the EE through the head of NOO in kind.” After having the management, such as DD and LL give the Plaintiff the contract for the instant construction work equivalent to the amount of O00 million won from GGG through the Plaintiff, on August 21, 2007, BB received KRW O00,000 from the GG to the FF account on May 15, 2007, KRW O0,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000 won, etc., received money and other valuables from public officials for a violation of the Aggravated Act.

On June 14, 2013, Kim Jong-Un shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the receipt of KRW 250 million from the above court on August 21, 2007, and with respect to the receipt of KRW 50 million from May 15, 2007, and KRW 50 million from cash O000,000 from February 2008, and with respect to the receipt of KRW O00,000 from the above court on June 14, 2013, "CC shall pay KRW 00,000 out of KRW O0,000 to EE EE upon the contract for the instant construction work, and as required by the EE EE, it shall not be deemed that it paid KRW 00,000 to the F account on May 15, 207, KRW 00,000,000,000 for the above cash OOO or OE.

C.On the ground that it was found not guilty, the Seoul High Court (2013No2052) and the Supreme Court

(2013Do14206) was maintained as it is.

(B) On March 14, 2011, GGG’s representative director was charged with violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) with the creation of off-the-counter funds by the Seoul Central District Court (201Gohap 180). On April 29, 2011, “CC concluded the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff on the site of “Plaintiff” and Seoul OO-dong O-dong O-dong OOOOOOO, and paid KRW 00 million from May 2007 to October 2007 under the pretext of rebates.” Since it was stated that “The Plaintiff was not guilty on the ground that it was in compliance with each investigation agency, such as the president, president of each transaction, president of each site, president of each site, HH, HH, and III, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the said GG used the said funds individually.”

(C) On May 12, 2011, the OOO Co., Ltd. filed an application for provisional disposition, such as suspending the performance of duties of the representative director, with the Seoul Central District Court (201Kahap1198). On June 13, 2011, it received a decision from the above court that "D shall not perform the duties of the director and the representative director of the said company until the date on which the general meeting of shareholders is convened for the appointment of the Plaintiff's director."

[Grounds for Recognition] Gap evidence 2, 6, 7 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers)

Statement, the purport of the whole pleading

D. Determination

(1) As to the attribution of rebates KRW 00 million

(A) Even if it is not subject to detention of the facts established in a criminal trial in the original tax lawsuit, the facts established in the final and conclusive criminal judgment cannot be rejected without permission, unless there are extenuating circumstances that make it impossible to employ them (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du23378, Aug. 17, 2012).

(B) The fact that "CC agreed to return 00 billion won out of the construction cost OE under contract for the instant construction work." However, DDR is the representative director of EE who owns 100% of the EE shares, and it was employed from April 11, 2006 to April 13, 2009 by the Plaintiff's representative director (EE acquired 93% of the Plaintiff's shares, and it was also reasonable to consider the Plaintiff's 200 billion won as the Plaintiff's representative director at the time of this case's criminal judgment on BB, and it is also reasonable to consider the Plaintiff's 200 billion won as the Plaintiff's order for return of PE 20 billion won as the Plaintiff's PE and the Plaintiff's representative director at the time of this case's criminal judgment on 200 billion won, and it is also reasonable to consider the Plaintiff's 201 billion won as the Plaintiff's criminal judgment on 201 billion won.

(2) As to KRW 00 million disposed of to BB

(A) O/O00 won on May 15, 2007

According to the criminal judgment on BB (2012 high-class 403), POC paid O and OO only to BB through the FF account in accordance with the agreement on the return of rebates of KRW 200 million; BB stated that “B received KRW 00,000 from the FF account on May 15, 2007 through the FF account” from the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office, “HH, which is a business director ofCC, paid KRW 50,000,000 to BB on January 7, 2013, it is reasonable to consider that HB paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff at the request of BB; HB, the representative director of F, made a statement that “the Plaintiff was entitled to return the tax invoice under the name of BF,” and that it was reasonable to consider the Plaintiff’s receipt of the tax invoice under the name of 10,000,0000,0000 won.”

(B) O or OO only won on August 21, 2007

1) Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 192(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20720, Feb. 29, 2008) provide that the dividend, leisure and other income disposed of shall be notified to the relevant corporation by a notice on change of income amount as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy. Article 100 subparag. 24 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 554, Apr. 17, 2007) provides that a notice on change of income amount shall include the name, address, representative, type of income, business year, year to which the income is reverted, name, resident registration number, etc. of the person who received the notice on change of income amount shall not be deemed unlawful or unlawful if the person who received the notice on change of income amount becomes a corporation established at the same time through the disposition of income and subsequent notice on change of income amount, and thus, the person who is a withholding agent shall clearly state the specific type and effect of income tax imposed.

2) According to the criminal judgment (2012 high-class 403), "OB 200,000,000 won," which was issued on August 21, 2007 by "CC," but which was received through the FF account on May 15, 2007, the amount of KRW 10,000,000,000,000 from "OB 200,000,000,000,000 won, which was received from "OB 1,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

In light of the fact that E.S.O. and O.O. only won paid as E., paid as O.O. and paid as O.O. on or around February 2008 (the criminal judgment was made prior to the criminal judgment and was determined as the return of rebates on August 15, 2007, and the criminal judgment later became final and conclusive as the return of rebates on or around February 2008, the amount paid pursuant to the rebates return agreement is KRW O00 andOO00 won around February 15, 2007 (the criminal judgment specified as August 21, 2007) and KRW O00,000 won received by BB regardless of such fact.

Therefore, the income disposition of the 2007 business year (incomeer: BB, O00,000 won) from the disposition of this case should be made about the income amount on or around February 2, 2008. However, the income disposition of this case was made about KRW 00 million on August 15, 2007, which constitutes an important matter for the withholding agent's duty performance of tax liability. The plaintiff argued about the ownership of KRW 00 million on August 15, 2007, KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000 won on or around August 15, 2007, and the Tax Tribunal determined that it was unlawful on the premise that the notice of tax withholding was made on August 15, 2007, and that the notice of tax withholding was made on the premise that the notice of tax withholding was made on the premise that the notice of tax withholding was unlawful.

(3) As to KRW 00 million disposed of to DD

(A) Where a corporation fails to enter its sales in the books despite the fact of its sales or appropriates the processing costs in the books, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the proceeds of the corporation equivalent to the omitted sales or processing costs have been leaked out of the books. In such a case, there is a need to prove that the total amount of the omitted sales, etc. has not been leaked out of the company (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du16347, Dec. 24, 199). On the ground of the criminal judgment (201No1212) against GG on the ground of this case, the Plaintiff’s judgment of innocence was rendered on the ground that the Plaintiff was not guilty. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that it was not attributable to DD on the ground of the judgment of innocence, and HH was not required to prove that it was paid to the representative director of the 200 billion won or less, and that there was no evidence to prove that it was not paid to DD 100,000,0000 won or more.

(B) Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, the act of using the corporation’s funds by the representative director, etc., who is the actual manager of the corporation, was not conducted under the premise of recovery from the beginning, and thus constitutes an outflow from the company. As to special circumstances that cannot be viewed as not premised on recovery from the utilization point, it shall be determined individually and specifically by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the actual status within the corporation of the representative director, etc., the subject of embezzlement, the degree of control over the corporation, the circumstances leading to embezzlement, and the measures taken by the corporation after embezzlement, etc., where the intent of the representative director, etc. is deemed as identical to the corporation’s intent or where it is difficult to deem that the corporate economic interest with the representative director, etc. is in fact consistent. Such special circumstances should be proved by the corporation asserting it (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20959, Jan. 28, 2010). Do 2010, Do 2006, which held the Plaintiff’s Do 2614.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, among the dispositions in this case, "2B, income amount," "OO,OO, andOO" portion of "207 business year (income earner: OO,OO, andOO)" should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.