Gwangju District Court 2007Guhap3183 ( August 28, 2008)

Whether the estimated tax on the corporation normally operated is legitimate

The Plaintiff, not a normal construction company, but a corporation incorporated by the ordering person of a construction project, operated normally, such as omitting revenues without following normal procedures or accounting, and did not submit evidence at the request of the tax authorities several times. As such, the Plaintiff’s profit rate or labor ratio, etc. shows a large difference from the average value, it cannot be deemed that the estimated taxation lacks rationality and feasibility.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The corporate tax for the year 2002 owed to the Plaintiff on October 1, 2006, KRW 2,251,080,600, and ear in 2003, each of which belongs to the Plaintiff

Each disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 1,274,067,340, corporate tax of KRW 2,332,213,770, and corporate tax of KRW 2,210,537,170 for the year 2005 (hereinafter each disposition of this case) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The key issue of this case is ① whether it is legitimate for the Defendant to estimate the corporate tax base by deducting the amount calculated by multiplying the business revenue amount of the Plaintiff by the standard expense rate under Article 145 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act pursuant to Article 66(2)1 and the proviso of Article 66(3) of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 104(1)1 and (2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and ② in this case, even if the Defendant estimated the Plaintiff’s tax base by applying the standard expense rate according to the method prescribed by the statutes, it is whether the estimation method

As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that Article 145 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act should apply to the case where a small enterprise provided for in Article 7(1)2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is closed at the time of the instant disposition, the first instance court determined that the instant disposition was lawful by deducting the amount calculated by multiplying the Plaintiff’s business revenue amount by the standard expense rate provided for in Article 145 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act pursuant to Article 66(2)1 and proviso to Article 66(3) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 104(1)1 and 104(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 104(2)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, based on the premise that the instant disposition was closed at the time of the instant disposition. The first instance court determined that the instant disposition was legitimate

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the newly asserted issues (2) that were newly asserted in the trial, and therefore, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional parts; and

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

② In relation to the issue, the Plaintiff asserts that the standard expense rate is reasonable and reasonable because, in case where the corporate tax base is estimated by applying standard expense rate pursuant to Article 104(1)1 and Article 104(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, "purchase expenses and rent for fixed assets for business," and "personnel expenses for executive officers and employees," which are remarkably lower in comparison with the standard expense rate under the premise that the expense rate should be proved by documentary evidence, and thus, in order to apply standard expense rate, it should be premised on the premise that the principal expense should be determined at a reasonable level. However, the Plaintiff did not recognize expenses based on the ground that documentary evidence on donations, labor expenses, and construction expenses submitted by the Plaintiff was voluntarily prepared

B. Determination

In imposing estimated tax, there should be reasonable and reasonable feasibility so as to reflect the actual value nearest to the truth in the method and content of the estimation, and such circumstances should also be considered in the case of taxpayers subject to estimated tax, if there are special circumstances. Thus, even if the tax authority imposed the estimated tax by the method prescribed by the law, if there are special circumstances to deem that it would be unreasonable if the estimation method would be applied to the estimation method, the estimated tax without considering such special private disputes is illegal because it cannot be recognized as reasonable and reasonable in its estimation method and content (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15202, Jul. 30, 1996).

그러므로 살피건대, 을제1호증, 을제5호증의 1 내지 3, 을제8호증, 을제12호증의 2 내지 4, 을제14, 25호증의 각 1 내지 4의 각 기재, 이 법원의 광주세무서에 대한 사실 조회결과, 증인 정○배의 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 당초에 수입금액을 2002사업연도 3,348,787,000원, 2003사업연도 3,882,024,000원, 2004사업연도 2,024,517,000원, 2005사업연도 2,025,593,000원, 합계 11,280,921,000원으로 각 신고한 반면에, 피고가 감사원의 원고에 대한 조사결과, ○○은행에 대한 입출금내역 조회, ○○대학교의 지출결의서, 매입세금계산서, 원고의 수정신고금액을 참작하여 조사한 후 원고의 수입금액을 2002사업연도 10,538,802,000원, 2003사업연도 8,587,479,000원, 2004사업연도 10,210,063,000원, 2005사업연도 10,813,957,000원, 합계 40,150,301,000원으로 확정한 사실, 원고가 법인세 수정신고 당시 추가손금으로 27,905,675,000원을 신고하였으나 이는 위 수입누락금액 합계 28,869,335,000원(원고가 신고한 누락수입금액은 28,638,294,000원)에 육박하고 있었고 위 추가손금 부분에 대한 관련 장부 및 증빙서류가 없어 피고가 원고에게 2006. 7. 19., 2006. 7. 25. 두 차례에 걸쳐 자료제출을 요구하였으나 원고가 아무런 자료도 제출하지 않은 사실, 원고가 추가손금 부분의 신빙성을 확인하기 위하여 원고가 검찰청에 제출한 기부금, 노무비, 공사대금의 지출근거 서류를 조사한 결과, 이들 서류는 모두 사후에 원고의 입・출금거래내역에 따라 임의적으로 거짓되게 기재되었거나, 당시 진행된 ○○보건대학, ○○대학교 건축공사와 구분되지 않게 기재되어 사실여부에 대한 확인이 불가능하다고 결론지은 사실, 위 결론에 따라 피고가 법인세법 제66조 제2항 제1호, 제3항 단서, 법인세법 시행령 제104조 제1항 제1호, 제2항 제1호에 따라 원고의 사업수입금액 합계 40,150,257,000원(=2002사업연도 10,538,802,000원, 2003사업연도 8,587,479,000원, 2004사업연도 10,210,063,000원, 2005사업연도 10,813,913,000원)에서 원고가 당초신고한 것에 근거하여 주요경비 합계 10,772,434,000원(=2002사업연도 3,281,217,000원, 2003사업연도 3,797,448,000원, 2004사업연도 1,953,252,000원, 2005사업연도 1,740,517,000원)을 공제 한 다음, 소득세법 시행령 145조에 규정한 기준경비율을 곱하여 계산한 기준경비 합계 4,987,519,000원(=2002사업 연도 1,380,583,000원, 2003사업연도 1,064,847,000원, 2004사업연도 1,266,048,000원, 2005사업연도 1,276,041,000원)을 공제하여 소득금액을 합계 24,390,304,000원(=2002사업연도 5,887,002,000원, 2003사업연도 3,725,184,000원, 2004사업연도 6,990,763,000원, 2005사업연도 7,797,355,000원)으로 산정하고 이를 근거로 과세표준을 확정한 후 이 사건 각 부과처분을 한 사실, 피고는 원고의 대표이사였던 박○채, 김○성에게 각 4차례에 걸쳐 조사를 위하여 출석을 요구하였으나 김○성은 출석하지 않았고, 박○채만 2006. 9. 7. 출석하여 원고의 대표이사로 있으면서 원고를 실질적으로 경영한 사실이 없고 단지 공사현장에 노무자를 동원하는 업무만 담당하였으며, 원고의 실제 경영자는 모른다고 진술한 사실, 당시 현장소장으로 원고의 공사를 지휘・ 감독한 정○배도 원고의 대표이사만을 알고 있을 뿐 그 이외의 원고의 경영진에 대하여 전혀 모르고 있는 사실, 원고는 학교법인 ○남학원, ○복학원, ○남학원, ○남학원, ○호학원, 의료법인 ○○재단에서 운영하고 있는 학교와 병원의 시설물 공사를 위해 1996. 8. 8. 자본금 750,000,000원으로 설립된 회사인데, 위 각 학교법인 및 의료법인의 실질적인 설립자 이○하가 원고를 사실상 경영하고 있고, 원고의 주주인 이○수, 김○성, 신○환은 모두 위 각 학원의 대표, 교장, 행정실장 등 관련자들이고 다른 주주인 서○영은 위 이○하의 처인 사실, 원고가 건설공사를 수급한 ○○대학교는 학교법인 ○남학원에 속해 있고, 원고가 포기한 공사를 인수하였다는 주식회사 ○○건설의 대주주 겸 대표이사인 신○건이 이○하가 실질적으로 운영하는 ○호학원 산하 ○○대학교의 직원이었고, 전 주주였던 신○환도 ○남학원의 대표였던 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

As seen above, unlike ordinary construction companies, the Plaintiff was established by a related person of the above school juristic person and the medical corporation for construction of construction facilities operated by the above school juristic person and the medical corporation, and omitted the amount of revenue without normal procedure or accounting. Despite the Defendant’s request for multiple times, if the Plaintiff did not submit any documentary evidence concerning the additional losses, the Plaintiff’s operating profit ratio compared to the Plaintiff’s sales exceeds the average operating profit ratio, and even though it is deemed that the ratio of the labor cost to the business revenue amount was higher than the average operating profit ratio of the industry, it is deemed that the Defendant did not have any reasonable and reasonable method or content of the estimation.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that each disposition of this case is unlawful because it lacks rationality and validity in the estimation method and content is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.