Suwon District Court-2015-Guhap6999 (Law No. 11, 2016)

Cho Jae-2014-China-2004 (No. 24, 2015)

Unless there are special circumstances, such as that it is difficult to use the certificate as a supporting material for specific facts, the value of the evidence shall not be denied.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as where a written confirmation is forced against the will of the originator, or it is difficult to consider it as a supporting material for specific facts due to lack of details, etc., the value of such written confirmation, etc. shall not be denied.

The exclusion period for national tax assessment under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Nu42892 Revocation, etc. of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

HHH Co., Ltd.

Doegi Tax Director

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap66999 Decided April 11, 2016

August 23, 2016

September 27, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant revoked both the imposition of the value-added tax of 1st quarter of 2006 against the plaintiff on January 6, 2014; the value-added tax of 2006; the value-added tax of 2nd quarter of 2006; the value-added tax of 0,000,000,000, and the value-added tax of 2nd quarter of 2007 for the first quarter of 2007; the imposition of 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000 for the first quarter of 207; and the defendant revoked the imposition of the bonus income of 206,000,0000,000,0000, respectively; and

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this court's explanation is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ Part 2, No. 15 of the judgment of the first instance court was confirmed, and the following is added:

LL, during the tax investigation period from 1st to 2nd 201, prepared a confirmation document stating that the Plaintiff’s cash sales amount of KRW 000,000,000, such as the issues amount of this case, were received through the personal passbook and omitted to report it.

○ In Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, Part 9 "A 1" added "3 and 4"

○ Part 3 of the Decision of the first instance court, Part 12, adding the following:

The details of transactions of the Plaintiff’s representative director’s personal account cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s concealed sales. Even if the Plaintiff’s representative director’s personal account received part of the amount of part of the Plaintiff’s account sales, there was no omission of taxes by entirely filing a return of value-added tax and corporate tax thereon. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case, which the Plaintiff deemed as tax evasion by concealing sales

○ On the third third decision of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

1) Whether the Plaintiff omitted the key amount of the instant case from sales

Unless there are special circumstances, such as where a tax authority has obtained from a taxpayer a written confirmation, etc. that a certain part of a transaction is the processing transaction in the course of conducting a tax investigation, it shall not unreasonably deny the value of the evidence of such written confirmation, etc., unless there exist any special circumstances, such as where the written confirmation was forced against the intent of the originator, or it is difficult to use it as the supporting material for the specific facts due to lack of the content (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du12589, Feb. 24, 2006; 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002).

The Plaintiff’s cash sales were remitted or deposited into the Plaintiff’s personal account, the representative director, and the LL was written with a confirmation letter stating that “after receiving the Plaintiff’s cash sales through the personal account, the Plaintiff omitted filing a return.” The entries and images of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 17 or 10 (including the serial number) are insufficient to deny the value of the said confirmation, and there is no evidence to prove any special circumstance that the said confirmation was drafted compulsorily or it is difficult to use it as the supporting material. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff reported value-added tax and corporate tax without omitting the key amount of the instant case from the sales. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

○ Violation of the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance

○ Violation of the first instance court’s order, first instance court’s order, first instance court’s order, second instance court’s order, second instance court’s order, second instance

○ From No. 6 to No. 7 of the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second to No. 7

In addition, retroactive legislation can be divided into a genuine level legislation that applies to the facts or legal relations that have already been terminated by new legislation and an in personam level legislation that applies to the facts or legal relations that are currently in progress. Among them, the genuine level legislation that intends to deprive an individual of the legal status that has already been formed by the existing law through post legislation is not permitted by the principle of the rule of law that covers the protection of individuals' trust and legal stability. On the other hand, in principle, in the process of a bridge between the reasons for public interest and the reasons for personal protection that require the retroactive effect, which require the retroactive effect only in principle, the scope of the legislation is limited in the process of a bridge between the reasons for the public interest that require the retroactive effect and the reasons for the protection of trust. In addition, the principle of legal non-payment means that the relevant law cannot be applied to the facts that have already been completed before the entry into force of the law, and it does not limit the application of the law on the requirements that have already occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da12270, Jun.

Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 2011) provides that "where a taxpayer evades a national tax, obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, it shall be ten years from the date on which the national tax can be imposed, in cases where the taxpayer evades a national tax, obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means," as amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 2011, if the national tax evaded, refunded or deducted by unlawful act is a corporate tax, it shall be ten years from the date on which the income tax or corporate tax can be imposed on the amount disposed of under Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 2 of the Addenda provides that "the latter part of Article 26-2(1)1 of the Corporate Tax Act shall apply to the disposal of the national tax from the first date after January 1, 2012."

Since LL’s liability to pay income tax for 2006 and 2007 on January 1, 2012, which was the enforcement date of the amended provisions, was in progress as of January 1, 2012, the amended provisions are deemed to be applicable in principle. Moreover, the amended provisions have been amended to make it 10 years equal to the corporate tax evaded as bonus, dividend, etc. when corporate tax evaded as of January 1, 201, and the exclusion period of imposition of income tax for the amount disposed of as of bonus, dividend, etc. when the exclusion period of imposition of income tax was 5 years after the exclusion period of income tax due to ordinary disposal of income, there are many cases where the notice of change of income tax is made after 20 years after the exclusion period of income tax was 5 years after the exclusion period of income tax due to corporate tax evasion and it is unclear that the income belongs to the representative of the corporation, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the exclusion period of imposition for 20 years from 5 to 10 years is more important than the exclusion period of income tax application of this case.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.