early 2009west4030 ( December 24, 2010)

additional necessary expenses shall be included only in the necessary expenses for which credibility is recognized.

The tuition fees of the State III are deemed reliable in light of the suspect interrogation protocol, the e-mail sent and received, and the sales of the State III in 2006, and are additionally included in the necessary expenses, and it is insufficient to recognize that other expenses were already included in the necessary expenses or additionally paid, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that such other expenses were not included in the necessary expenses.

2011Guhap935 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

Completion Officer

The director of the tax office.

March 19, 2013

April 18, 2013

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax of KRW 000,000 on the Plaintiff on March 13, 2009, exceeding KRW 000,00,000, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 80% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on March 13, 2009 is revoked, with the global income tax of 000 won for the year 2004, global income tax of 2005, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2006, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2006, and global income tax of 0000 won for the year 2007.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 24, 2002, the Plaintiff operated 'GGG-based 000 OO building 000 OGG-based 000, Gangnam-gu Seoul. (hereinafter "the instant private teaching institute").

B. As a result of the tax investigation conducted on the Plaintiff, the director of the OO head of the tax office included the omitted amount in the total income amount as follows, included the amount confirmed as off-the-counter expenses in the necessary expenses, and notified the Defendant of the global income tax correction resolution from 2004 to 2007. Accordingly, on March 13, 2009, the Defendant issued the notice of the comprehensive income tax correction from 2007 to 2009 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the first disposition”).

"Along with the complaint, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Tax Tribunal on November 5, 2009, and the Tax Tribunal on December 24, 2010, and the initial disposition on December 1, 2010, including 000 won, and 000 won, for the instructor fee paid to this HH in necessary expenses in 2005 and 2006, and 00 won, for the remaining tax years, for each of 00 won, for the global income tax base in 2006 and 000 won, for the global income tax year 200 and 00 won, for the other tax years 200, for the global income tax base in 200, and 200, for the other years 200, for the global income tax base in 2005 and 2007, for the other years."

[Based on recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (which include the number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The sum of the tuition fees paid in cash to the grandchildren III instructors should be additionally included in necessary expenses as follows:

2) In addition to the necessary expenses, the sum of the tuition fees paid to the Court-J instructors should be included in the following expenses:

3) A sum of KRW 000 for instructors paid in 2006 to KimK instructors and KRW 000 for instructors paid in 2007 should be additionally included in necessary expenses.

4) On February 6, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement to move the instant driving school, terminated the lease agreement, and paid 000 won to the lessor as penalty, and should be additionally included in necessary expenses.

B. Determination

1) In a case where a tax assessment is made with respect to omitted income in accordance with a field investigation decision, barring any evidence to support that there was a separate expense corresponding to the omitted income, the total amount of the income should be added to the income amount, and with respect to the cost corresponding to the omitted income, it accords with the empirical rule and the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu10695, Jul. 28, 1992; 2002Du2673, Nov. 27, 2003).

2) The part concerning the instructor fee of the Hand III

Items A, 6, 10, and 12, together with the overall purport of the pleadings, and the plaintiff 207.

1. The plaintiff's e-mail 29. It is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiff's 20th annual salary is 00 won or more, and that the plaintiff's 20th annual salary is 00 won or more, and that the plaintiff's 2nd annual salary is 50 million won or more, and that the 2nd annual salary is 00 billion won or more, and that the plaintiff's 2nd annual salary is 1:00 won or more, and that the 2nd annual salary is 00 billion won or more, and that the plaintiff's 2nd annual salary is 1:00 won or more, and that the 2nd annual salary is 00 billion won or more, and that the 2nd annual salary is 00 billion won or more, and that the 2nd annual salary is 00 billion won or more.

In light of Gap's 3, 4, and 11 evidence, the plaintiff transferred 00 won in total to the account of J and HamM as alleged by the plaintiff four times from July 31, 2007 to December 7, 2007, as well as the plaintiff's 200 won in addition to the above 00 won in 200 won in 208 and 700 won in 20 years in 20 years in 200 and 00 won in 20 years in 20 years in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200, the plaintiff's 20 years in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200 in 200.

4) Part on the tuition fees for KimKK

In full view of the evidence No. 4 and evidence No. 4, the whole purport of the pleadings, and the defendant, while making the initial disposition, may recognize that the sum of the tuition fees paid in 2006 and the tuition fees paid in 2007 to K K in the necessary expenses is included in the necessary expenses. Since the part of the tuition fees claimed by the plaintiff was already included in the necessary expenses at the time of the initial disposition, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

5) Part of penalty

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid KRW 000 as a penalty for breach of contract upon termination of the lease contract only with the statement of evidence No. 9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit

6) Calculation of a legitimate amount of tax;

In addition, when calculating the global income tax belonging to the year 2006, the amount exceeding 000 won (00 won) of the global income tax belonging to 2006 should be revoked, on the grounds that the global income tax belonging to 2006, exceeds 000 won (00 won) from among the imposition disposition of global income tax belonging to 2006, as well as the global income tax belonging to 2006.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.