The cost of the construction project whose actual payment is not confirmed shall not be deemed necessary expenses.

The cost of construction that is not confirmed to have been actually paid cannot be deemed necessary expenses, and the reporting and payment of capital gains tax while carrying on construction business and housing construction business cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have breached his/her duty. The portion of the failure: the portion of the omission of the additional tax to be paid

Article 27 (1) and (3) of the Income Tax Act, Article 1 (1) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap61951

00

00 Other than the director of the tax office

November 4, 2015

November 4, 2015

1. On August 1, 2010, the part exceeding 144,564,458 of global income tax for the year 2006 (including additional tax) and the part exceeding 354,211,284 of global income tax for the year 2008 (including additional tax), and the part exceeding 354,211,284 of global income tax for the year 2008, shall be revoked.

2. On February 10, 2014, the part of the global income tax of 18,136,580 won (including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on February 10, 2009, which exceeds 12,741,820 won, shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant 00 director are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, 3/4 of the portion arising between the plaintiff and the defendant 00 tax office shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remaining 1/4 by the defendant 00 tax office, and the portion arising between the plaintiff and the defendant 4 tax office shall be borne by the defendant D

Cheong-gu Office

The part exceeding KRW 82,56,910 of global income tax for the year 2006 (including additional tax) and the part exceeding KRW 405,204,940 of global income tax for the year 2008 (including additional tax) and the part exceeding KRW 196,964,480 of global income tax for the year 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Original disposition;

The director of the tax office conducted an investigation into tax evasion offense against the plaintiff on August 1, 2010, and made the following dispositions against the plaintiff:

1) The Plaintiff, while carrying on real estate rental business by constructing a new building listed in the attached Table 1, sold the site and building listed in the attached Table 1, around 2006. However, the Plaintiff reported real estate rental income of KRW 51,943,404 as global income and returned and paid the global income tax for 2006. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff reported the income accrued from the sale and purchase of the above site and building as transfer income and paid the transfer income tax for 2006. The Defendant 00: (a) deemed the above income as the business income and the Plaintiff did not report the amount of KRW 686,349,462 as the business income and paid the transfer income tax for 2006; (b) revised the total income tax for 295,923,215 as the income tax for 295,923,625,371 won as the total income tax for 220,654,654,686.

2) Although the Plaintiff newly constructed each building listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 through 5 and sold each site and building listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 through 5 around 2008, the Plaintiff reported and paid the income accrued therefrom as global income tax for the year 2008 under the name of E, an employee, who is one of his own relatives, for the Plaintiff. Defendant 00 notified the Plaintiff of the total income tax for the year 76,296,514 won (including additional taxes, such as filing a tax return on unfair non-taxation) for the reason that the Plaintiff omitted the return of income under the name of another person and the return of income amount in the false form of a sales contract, and omitted the return of income amount of KRW 1,518,869,156 by appropriating necessary expenses by means of false preparation of a construction contract.

3) With respect to the construction of each building listed in the separate sheet Nos. 6 through 9 and the sale of each site and building listed in the separate sheet Nos. 6 through 9 in 2009, Defendant 00 issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff’s global income tax amount of KRW 134,524,480 (including additional tax) for the year 2009 on the ground that “the Plaintiff omitted the amount of income by means of income return under the name of another person, false preparation of sales contract, etc., and omitted the return of KRW 96,781,03 in excess of necessary expenses by means of false preparation of construction contract, etc.”

(b) Request for the first trial, reexamination and correction of the amount of reduction by the defendant 00 chief of the tax office;

1) After filing an objection on May 13, 201, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on May 13, 201. The Tax Tribunal issued an appeal on global income and disposition on June 21, 201, which reverts to the year 2006, the global income tax base and tax amount were determined as the amount confirmed by re-auditing the construction cost of the building listed in the separate sheet 1 and re-auditing the construction cost of the building listed in the separate sheet 2, and the global income tax disposition on February 2008, the amount of the revenue of the building listed in the separate sheet 5 and the construction cost of each building listed in the separate sheet 2 through 5, the assessment base and tax amount were corrected as the amount confirmed by re-auditing the construction cost of the building listed in the separate sheet 7 and the construction cost of the building listed in the separate sheet 6 through 9, and the determination on global income tax reverted to the year 209 was dismissed.

2) After completing a reinvestigation, Defendant 00 director of the tax office rendered the following dispositions to the Plaintiff on August 1, 2013.

A) In the case of global income tax for the year 2006, the amount of KRW 213,787,105 as necessary expenses is additionally recognized, and the amount of the global income tax for the year 2006 is reduced to KRW 188,595,970 (including additional tax) and the amount of the global income tax for the year 2006.

B) In the case of global income tax attributed to year 2008, the amount of income was reduced to KRW 113,808,060 and the necessary expenses was reduced to KRW 175,439,79,790 (i.e., KRW 289,247,850 - KRW 113,808,060) and the amount was accordingly reduced to KRW 625,135,80 (including additional tax).

C) In the case of global income tax attributed to year 2009, the amount of income was reduced to KRW 50,000,000 and the necessary expenses was additionally reduced to KRW 265,431,161 (i.e., KRW 315,431,161 - 50,000), and the amount was accordingly reduced to KRW 15,070,270 (including additional tax).

(c) Secondary appeal:

The plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on September 9, 2013.

D. Correction of the increase in global income tax for the year 2009 by Defendant DD Head of the tax office

On February 10, 2014, on the ground that the amount of KRW 28,038,200 was appropriated as necessary expenses, Defendant DD head of the tax office increased the amount of global income to KRW 28,038,200, and revised the amount of global income for KRW 31,221,660 in 209, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 16,151,380 in 15,275, after deducting the amount of initial notified tax.

(e) Results of the second appeal and correction of reduction;

1) On July 15, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “The tax Tribunal included KRW 30,203,877 for the year 2006, KRW 422,038,710 for the year 2008, and KRW 87,273,859 for the year 2009 as necessary expenses, thereby correcting each tax base and tax amount, and dismissed the remainder of the appeal.”

2) On July 25, 2014, the Defendants: (a) recognized the necessary expenses additionally; (b) determined that the global income tax for 2006 was KRW 17,816,350 (including additional taxes); (c) as global income tax for 2008, the global income tax for KRW 405,204,940 (including additional taxes); and (d) as global income tax for 209, the amount of which was 18,136,580 (including additional taxes); and (c) the Defendants issued a revised and notified each of the revised and corrected tax base on August 1, 2013 (hereinafter the Defendants’ tax office revised the revised tax base on August 1, 201 and the revised tax base on July 25, 2014, the amount of the global income tax for 2006, which was later reduced on August 1, 201 and the amount of tax for global income for 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 11, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 15 (including the corresponding serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

(a) Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

B. As to the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2006 of the instant case

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) As necessary expenses for the new construction of the building as indicated in the [Attachment No. 1 sold by the Plaintiff in 2006, the amount of KRW 64,754,920 for employees, such as the site director, and KRW 93,309,00 for on-site daily labor should be additionally recognized.

B) Since the Defendant considered the income from the sale of the above building as the business income and imposed the global income tax on the Plaintiff, it should be granted a reduction or exemption of the special tax amount for small and medium enterprises within the Seoul Metropolitan Area pursuant to Article 7 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same).

C) The Plaintiff: (a) deemed income of KRW 641,135,642 from the new construction and transfer of a building on 0000 as capital gains; and (b) reported and paid the capital gains tax for the year 2006. Although the said income is business income, the Plaintiff reported the amount higher than the business income calculated by the Defendant as capital gains; (c) thus, it is unreasonable to impose a penalty tax for general underreporting on the Plaintiff.

(d)The additional tax on non-declaration of evidence must be cancelled because it is not known of the grounds for its imposition.

2) Determination

A) Whether necessary expenses are recognized

(1) According to Article 27 (1) and (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006) and Article 55 (1) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034 of Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same), the amount to be included in necessary expenses in the calculation of real estate rental income amount and business income amount shall be the sum of the amount corresponding to the total income in the current year and the ordinary expenses generally accepted as expenses. The employee's salary is recognized as necessary expenses corresponding to the total income in each year of real estate rental income and business income. Meanwhile, since the tax base is deducted from the income, the burden of proof of income and necessary expenses is advantageous to the taxpayer, and most of the facts that generated necessary expenses are in the area controlled by the taxpayer, and thus it is easily possible to prove such expenses, it shall be assumed that there is no need for the taxpayer to prove necessary expenses without any necessary expense (see, e.g. 20084.

(2) In light of the above provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, the issue of whether the Plaintiff’s salary of KRW 64,754,920 for employees, including the site director, may be included in the necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of business income attributed to year 2006. In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid KRW 64,754,920 for the additional site director and employees, other than the salary of KRW 133,648,00, which the tax authority considered as necessary expenses in relation to the new construction of the building listed in the attached Table 1, in addition to the salary of KRW 133,648,00,00, in addition to the salary of KRW 133,754,920, which is deemed as necessary expenses by the tax authority, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(A) The benefits asserted by the Plaintiff are paid from January 15, 2004 to December 31, 2006 to C,B, KimM, YangS, etc. with respect to the new construction of the building listed in the attached Table 1. However, since the building listed in the attached Table 1 was used in the real estate rental business after obtaining approval for use on August 20, 204, it is difficult to view the benefits paid after the approval for use as the acquisition price of the building listed in the attached Table 1.

(B) As to the global income tax for the year 2006, the Plaintiff reported KRW 87,434,696 as necessary expenses for the building rental business as indicated in the attached Table 1, and the expenses paid as the benefits and the wages and allowances are KRW 36,300,000, and the benefits paid to C,B, and KimM are KRW 35,100,000 (=C 19,800,000 + KRW 11,40,000 + KRW 3,90,000). Therefore, it appears that the benefits claimed by the Plaintiff for the building rental business as indicated in the attached Table 1 overlap with the benefits claimed by the Plaintiff.

(C) The Plaintiff reported KRW 43,380,980 as necessary expenses for the building lease business as indicated in the attached Table 1 on global income tax for the year 2005, and since the said amount was paid to C, KimM,B, and SS as the expenses paid as salary of KRW 19,155,85, and the said amount was paid to C, KimM,B, and SS, among the benefits claimed by the Plaintiff, the benefits for the building lease business as indicated in the attached Table 1 and the attached Table 1 are deemed to overlap.

(3) Next, this paper examines whether the amount of KRW 93,309,000 for on-site daily labor costs may be included in the necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of business income accrued in 2006. In light of the following: (a) the statement of evidence No. 14; and (b) the witnessC’s testimony by adding the whole purport of the pleadings; (c) the details of the payment of daily labor costs from December 2003 to July 2005 (Evidence No. 10-2 to 21) are not written at the time of the tax investigation; (b) the payment of daily labor costs was made at the time of the tax investigation; (c) the Plaintiff was not separately submitted to the daily workers at the construction site of the new building listed in the attached Table No. 1; and (d) there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid daily labor costs to the daily workers at the construction site of the new building listed in the attached Table No. 1; and (d) the new construction of the building No. 10-1 through No. 21360. 90.

(4) Therefore, 64,754,920 won for the field director and staff members, etc. asserted by the Plaintiff, and 93,309,000 won for on-site daily labor as well as business income belonging to year 2006, cannot be considered as necessary expenses. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B) Whether to recognize the special tax reduction or exemption

According to the main text of Article 7 (1) 1 (c) and 2 (b) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, with respect to a small enterprise running a construction business in the Seoul Metropolitan area, an amount equivalent to the income tax calculated by applying the 20/100 reduction or exemption rate to the income tax on the income accrued at the relevant place of business not later than the taxable year ending on or before December 31, 2008. According to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 2 and 15, the establishment of a new building sales business in the attached Table No. 1 can be recognized as located in the Plaintiff’s separate sheet No. 000 and 2, and the fact that the Plaintiff is a business operator running a construction business and a housing construction business is not a dispute between the parties. In addition, in light of the sales amount of a new building sales business listed in the attached Table No. 1, the Plaintiff appears to have been a business operator operating a small enterprise in the Seoul Metropolitan area. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount equivalent to the tax on the attached Table No. 1 shall be applied to 200 percent.

C) Whether the imposition of general underreporting penalty tax is legitimate

(1) If the Plaintiff’s assertion is made on this part, the imposition of the general under-reported penalty tax on global income for the year 2006 is deemed to have been revoked on the grounds that there is a justifiable ground for the reduction of the general under-reported penalty tax on global income for the year 2006.

(2) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed in accordance with the provisions of tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates a tax return and tax liability without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intention and negligence is not considered. On the other hand, it is unreasonable to deem that the taxpayer was not aware of his/her duty, and thus, it is unreasonable to deem that the taxpayer was not aware of his/her duty, or that it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fulfill his/her duty, and thus, it is not unreasonable to impose an obligation on the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du16622, Apr. 28, 2011).

(3) In light of the following circumstances revealed by adding the facts admitted earlier and the purport of the entire argument as seen earlier, namely, the Plaintiff’s 1.0 applied the Construction Business and Housing Construction and Sales Business from around September 2002, and the Plaintiff acquired 53 real estate from around 2002 to 2009 and transferred 31 real estate, the Plaintiff appears to have reported and paid the transfer income tax without filing a return or payment of the comprehensive income tax on the income accrued from the sale of buildings listed in the attached Table 1 on the attached Table 206 due to a mere land or misunderstanding on the income tax law.

(4) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion alone cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds that prevent the Plaintiff from violating his duty. As such, the part of the imposition of global income tax for the imposition of global income tax for the year 2006 is legitimate. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

D) Whether the imposition of additional tax on non-Evidence of evidence is legitimate

(1) When a single tax payment notice imposes both the principal tax and the additional tax, the individual tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof should be stated in the tax payment notice separately. In addition, where multiple types of additional tax are imposed, it is clear that the taxpayer can per se identify the details of each tax payment notice by distinguishing the amount and the basis for calculation thereof, even between them. As such, the imposition of additional tax is deemed an imposition disposition, and only the total amount of additional tax is entered without disclosing the type and the basis for calculation thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012). However, even if there is any defect in which matters required by relevant statutes are omitted, if it is evident that the taxpayer already stated in the tax payment notice prior to the tax payment notice, etc., and thus, it does not interfere with the determination of objection against such disposition and appeal, the defect of the tax payment notice can be corrected or cured (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du3979, Mar. 279, 2001).

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statement Nos. 8-1 and 2, Defendant 00 of the tax office sent the Plaintiff a notice of result of the decision on the “request for a trial” (Evidence No. 8-1) upon reducing the global income tax attributed to July 25, 2014. The above documents include only the global income tax and the general underreporting, the total amount of the non-Evidence additional tax, and KRW 177,816,355, and did not state all the basis for calculation of non-proof additional tax, and the type or basis of calculation, etc. of the non-proof additional tax, which appears to have been notified to the Plaintiff by the head of the tax office, and the type and amount of the non-proof additional tax for the global income tax attributed to the year 2006. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the evidence of this case’s imposition of non-proof additional tax for the non-proof of evidence is unlawful.

(iii)the amount of legitimate tax;

A) In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition, the subject matter of adjudication is whether the tax base and tax amount notified by the tax authority exist objectively. In a case where the tax base and tax amount recognized by the disposition are excessive compared to the legitimate tax base and tax amount, the disposition of imposition is unlawful only to the extent exceeding the lawful tax base and tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6504, Mar. 28, 198

B) As seen earlier, among the calculated global income tax for the tax year 2006, the portion corresponding to the business income amount due to the sale of the building listed in the annexed Table 1 should be reduced or exempted, and 4,879,817 of the amount of non-proof of evidence should be denied. Considering the above, the amount of legitimate global income tax for the tax year 2006 shall be KRW 14,564,458, as shown in the annexed Table of the tax calculation of global income tax for the tax year 2006, the portion exceeding the above KRW 144,564,458 of the disposition imposing global income tax for the tax year 206 should be revoked unlawfully.

C. As to the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2008 of this case

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) Defendant 00’s director of the tax office calculated the total amount of the purchase price of land and building sold by the Plaintiff around 2008 as the amount of business income accrued in 2008. However, since the above purchase price includes value-added tax 12,862,750 won, the amount equivalent to the value-added tax should be deducted from the amount of business income accrued in 2008.

B) As necessary expenses for the construction of a building as indicated in the attached Table 2 sold by the Plaintiff around 2008, KRW 86,55,160 for employees, such as the site director, should be additionally recognized.

C) National pension contributions paid by the Plaintiff in 2008 should be deducted from global income accrued in 2008.

D) The director of the tax office imposed the comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff on the newly built project undertaken in the name of A, B,C, D, E, etc. as the Plaintiff’s business. Since the Plaintiff engaged in a construction project in the Seoul Metropolitan area in 2008, it should be recognized as a small and medium enterprise special tax reduction under the former Restriction of Special Taxation

E) The Plaintiff: (a) lent the name of the Plaintiff, etc. to a large number of individual land prices because it is difficult to lend a loan to the Plaintiff; and (b) faithfully returned and paid the comprehensive income tax on the income accrued from the construction and sales business of a building under the name of A, etc.; (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff did not report the income tax base and the tax amount on global income on the premise that the Plaintiff did not fully report the global income tax base and the tax amount.

2) Determination

A) As to the computation of the revenue amount

According to Article 24(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same), the calculation of the total amount of income on each resident’s income shall be based on the total amount of income earned or received during the relevant year. According to Article 26(9) of the former Income Tax Act, the output amount of value-added tax shall not be included in the total amount of income in calculating the amount of income in the relevant year. According to each of the evidence No. 8-3, No. 11-5, No. 12-1, No. 12-1, No. 14, and No. 14, the building and its appurtenant land indicated in the attached Table No. 5, which the Plaintiff newly built by lending the name of E, shall be based on the facts that the Plaintiff sold KRW 72,000,000 to ○ for the year 2008,000 won of global income tax, Defendant 208.

B) Whether necessary expenses are recognized

(1) According to the evidence Nos. 13-1 and 2 of evidence Nos. 13-2, and witnessC’s testimony, it can be acknowledged that the above facts were paid KRW 86,55,160 to Yang Do-D, who is the director of the site, who served as the head of the site under C’s direction at the above site, and as the director of the site, YangS and Yang DoJ, J, GangwonM, and the Plaintiff’s secretary at the temporary site, from January 15, 2007 to December 15, 2007. Further, in addition to the above facts and the purport of the whole evidence presented above, it can be found that the above facts were revealed as follows, namely, that there was a certain monthly or similar amount paid to 1.C, 2.3.3.3.3.3.3.3.3.3.3.5.4.5.5.4.05.05.05.00.00.

(2) Therefore, the above KRW 86,55,160 shall be included in the necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of business income accrued in 2008 as the “employee’s salary” pursuant to Article 27(1) and (3) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 55(1)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with merit.

C) Whether national pension premium income deduction is possible

According to Article 51-3 (1) of the former Income Tax Act, where a resident with global income has paid pension contributions (excluding employer contributions) under the National Pension Act, the pension contributions paid in the year concerned shall be deducted from his global income amount in the current year. According to the evidence No. 14, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,825,200 as national pension contributions in 2008. As such, the above KRW 1,825,000 shall be deducted from his global income amount in the year 2008. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part has merit

D) Whether to recognize special tax reduction or exemption for small and medium enterprises

According to Article 128(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, where a decision is made pursuant to Article 80(1) of the Income Tax Act, the special tax reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 7 is excluded. The Plaintiff’s business income for 2008 is required to return and pay comprehensive income tax. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s business income reported by Defendant 00 Tax DirectorA, etc. is deemed business income for 2008 and determined the Plaintiff’s tax base and tax amount of global income tax for 2008 pursuant to Article 80(1) of the former Income Tax Act. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff cannot be subject to reduction or exemption of the special tax amount for small or medium enterprises under Article 7(1)1(c) and 2(b) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. The Plaintiff’

E) Whether the imposition of unfair non-declaration penalty tax is legitimate

(1) According to Article 47-2(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9272 of Dec. 26, 2008) and Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038 of Feb. 18, 2010), a taxpayer violates the duty to report the tax base or amount of national taxes on the basis of concealing or pretending the whole or part of the fact that the tax base or amount of national taxes is calculated, such as double entry, 1. 2. false evidence or false document (hereinafter referred to as "false evidence, etc.") 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. 5. 6. 6. 6. 6. 1. 6. 6. 6. 20 . 1. 4. 6. 20 . 20 . 20 . 20 . 3 . 3 . 3 . . 3 . 3 . . . . 'unfair without tax base for unlawful tax return or under return without return.

(2) The fact that the Plaintiff had A, etc. return and pay the global income tax on the business income accrued in 2008 is as seen earlier. According to the evidence No. 11-3 and 5 of the evidence No. 11-5, the Plaintiff applied the 26% tax rate, not the highest tax rate, by filing and paying the global income tax on the income accrued from the sale and purchase of buildings and land annexed to the attached Table No. 3, 2008 under the name of C. The Plaintiff applied the 35% tax rate, not the highest tax rate. The Plaintiff filed and paid the global income tax on the income accrued from the sale and purchase of buildings and land annexed to the attached Table No. 5, and applied the 17% tax rate, not the highest tax rate.

(3) Examining the above facts in light of the statutory provisions and legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s act constitutes failure to report the tax base of global income tax for 2008 by referring to “discipation or concealment of income, profit, act, transaction, etc.” and the Plaintiff’s occurrence of a result of avoiding the application of the highest tax rate on certain business income. As such, the Plaintiff ought to be deemed to have failed to report the tax base by such active act as making it difficult to discover the taxation requirement of global income tax for 2008, which belongs to the purpose of tax evasion, or making it difficult for the Plaintiff to discover the taxation requirement of global income tax for 2008, or making a false representation. Therefore, the part imposing the unfair non-reported additional tax on global income tax for

(iii)the amount of legitimate tax;

As seen earlier, the amount of 6,983,023 won in global income of global income tax for the year 2008 and the amount of 86,55,160 won in gross income recognized as necessary expenses should be deducted. The amount of 1,825,200 won in national pension paid by the Plaintiff ought to be deducted. The amount of 208 global income tax for the global income tax for the year 2008, as shown in the separate sheet of tax calculation of global income tax for the year 2008, is KRW 354,211,284, as shown in the separate sheet of tax calculation of global income tax for the year 208, should be revoked.

D. As to the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2009 of this case

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) As necessary expenses for the new construction of a building as stated in the attached Table 9 sold by the Plaintiff around 2009, KRW 26,533,000 for employees, such as the site director, should be additionally recognized.

B) National pension contributions paid by the Plaintiff in 2009 should be deducted from global income accrued in 2009.

2) Determination

A) Whether necessary expenses are recognized

According to the evidence Nos. 15-1, 2-2, and witness C’s testimony, it is recognized that KRW 26,53,000 has been paid as wages to Kim II, the site manager of the new construction site of the building listed in the attached Table No. 9 of the attached Table, and to SS, JeonK, ES, ES, and KimK, an employee of the above site of Kim HH, from July 15, 2008 to December 24, 2008. The circumstance asserted by the defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition and there is no calendar. Therefore, the above KRW 26,553,00 should be included in the necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of business income for the year 209. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion has merit.

B) Whether national pension premium income deduction was made

According to Gap evidence No. 16, the plaintiff can be found to have paid KRW 2,341,440 as national pension contributions in 2009. Thus, the above KRW 2,341,440 as 2,341,440 should be deducted from the amount of global income belonging to 2009. The plaintiff's allegation in this part is with merit.

(iii)the amount of legitimate tax;

As seen earlier, 26,53,00 won should be deducted from global income of global income of global income tax for the year 2009, and 2,341,440 won should be deducted from national pension premium paid by the Plaintiff. The amount of legitimate global income tax for the year 2009, calculated by reflecting this point, is KRW 11,189,523, as indicated in the separate sheet, and the amount exceeding the above KRW 11,189,523, among the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2009, is unlawful. However, the Plaintiff sought revocation only for the portion exceeding KRW 12,741,820, out of global income tax for the year 209, the amount of global income tax for the year 2009 shall be revoked to the extent the Plaintiff seeks.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant DD director and the claim against the defendant 00 director of the tax office in excess of the above legitimate amount is justified. Thus, the plaintiff's remaining claim against the defendant 00 director of the tax office is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.