Suwon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-71162 ( September 20, 2018)

Whether the use of a borrowed account constitutes fraud or other unlawful act

Since non-data sales have reached 9.9 billion won for 10 years and have used borrowed accounts for purchase or disguised transactions, the exclusion period should be applied 10 years since the intention of concealment is positive.

Article 26-2 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Seoul High Court-2018-Nu68195 ( October 29, 2019)

AAA, Inc.

2. The Director of the Regional Tax Office:

Suwon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-71162 ( September 20, 2018)

on 15, 2019

on October 29, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Attached Table 1 of the judgment of the first instance rendered by Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office to the Plaintiff.

Each disposition to impose tax on Defendant 1 shall be revoked. The Director of the Regional Tax Office of △△△, March 2, 2017, that the Plaintiff

The notice of each change in income amount entered in the separate sheet No. 2 of the judgment of the court is revoked. On March 6, 2017, each disposition of imposition listed in the separate sheet No. 3 rendered by the head of the tax office of defendant ○○ on the plaintiff

The portion exceeding the legitimate tax amount shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the judgment in this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts and any additional part, thereby citing it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○○ 6th 5th 5th eth eth 201, “1. 25th e.g., January 25, 2012” was added to “1. 8th 6th e.g., judgment of the first instance court” and “Supreme Court Decision 2014Du2522 Decided September 15, 2015.”

Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "after the lapse of the exclusion period of imposition (10 years)" of the judgment at the first instance court, "shall add the following: (i) approximately 14,439,00,000 won of the deposit amount of the account at 14,967,135,601 won to the account at 006 to 2010 won, and (ii) approximately 53% of the deposit amount at 10 years from 2011 to 2015, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff did not have any tax evasion period from 20 years from 200 to 2010 to 2010 to 20 years from 20 years from 20 years from 10 to 2015 to 20 years from 20 years from 200 to 20 years from 200.

2. Conclusion

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