Whether the omission of the right to implement the project can be seen as the sales revenue of joint business operators.

In light of the parties to the contract settlement agreement, the reasons for reduction of the transfer price, and the method of payment, it is difficult to deem that there was an agreement to implement the joint project.

Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act: Decision and Correction

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 1,050,941,420 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2005 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a result of the tax investigation on the ○○ enterprise (at present, the trade name was changed to the ○ enterprise; hereinafter referred to as the “○○ enterprise”), the director of the regional tax office assigned the 3.8 billion won of the land purchase price and the right to implement apartment construction projects (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land and the right to implement the project”), and notified the Defendant of the fact that the ○○ enterprise filed a report with the ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Construction”) on April 26, 199, by omitting the above transfer amount of KRW 1.285 billion of the land purchase price and KRW 2.5 billion of the business transfer price, while filing a report with the Defendant on the 1.28 billion of the transfer price in the year 1999.

B. Accordingly, the defendant's inclusion in gross income of 1.285 billion won, which is an omission of the transfer amount, in the calculation of gross income to ○○ enterprise.

The corporate tax was corrected and notified, and the above omission portion was deemed to have been out of the company, and the income was disposed of to the plaintiff who was the representative director at the time, and on April 1, 2005, the plaintiff imposed the global income tax of KRW 1,050,941,420 on the plaintiff in 199 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

C. On June 29, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a national tax appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on June 30, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Of the transfer amount of the instant land and the right to implement the project, 1.5 billion won, ○ Metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Metal”) received directly from ○○ Construction as the recovery of the investment amount of KRW 1.485 billion, and did not belong to ○○ Company. Therefore, it is justifiable for ○○ Company to report excluding KRW 1.285 billion out of the transfer amount.

(2) Even if it is not acknowledged that ○ Metal received the above KRW 1.5 billion, ○○ Company entered into a joint project implementation agreement with 50% of the share of the instant project implementation right, and thus, the omitted portion of the transfer amount of the instant land and the project implementation right should be disposed of in ○ Company and ○ Metal each by 50%.

(3) The ○○ enterprise is entitled to the instant land and the project implementation right as deductible expenses at the time of filing a corporate tax return in 199.

Only KRW 180,000,000, such as office rent, wage, apartment construction consulting cost, etc. related to transfer, but the fact should also be treated as losses in addition to that, as well as the cost of KRW 280,000,000,000, such as civil engineering design cost, brokerage fee, construction design cost, etc., the omitted transfer amount shall be deducted from the omitted transfer amount to the gross income.

(b) the relevant regulations;

Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7838 of Dec. 31, 2005)

Article 66 (Settlement and Correction)

(1) Where any domestic corporation fails to report pursuant to Article 60, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office shall determine the tax base and tax

(2) Where a domestic corporation makes a report under Article 60 falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office shall correct the corporate tax base and

1. Where there are errors or omissions in the contents of the report;

Article 67 (Disposition of Income)

In filing a report on the corporate tax base on the income for each business year under the provisions of Article 60 or in determining or revising the corporate tax base under the provisions of Article 66 or 69, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company, internal reserve, etc. according to the person to whom it reverts

Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

Article 62

Article 106 (Disposition of Income)

(1) The amount included in the calculation of earnings under the provisions of Article 67 of the Act shall be disposed of under the provisions of the following subparagraphs. The same shall apply to non-profit domestic corporations

1. Where the amount included in the calculation of earnings has clearly leaked out of the company, the dividends, bonuses from the disposition of profits, other income, and other outflow from the company under each of the following items according to the person to whom they accrue: Provided, That where the accrual is unclear, it shall be deemed as accrual to the representative (where the total number of stocks held by an officer who is not a minority shareholder under the provisions of Article 87 (2) and persons with a special relationship under the provisions of paragraph (4) of the same Article is 30% or more of the total number of stocks issued or total investment amount of the concerned corporation and the officer actually controls the operation of the corporation, he shall be deemed the representative, and where a corporation which has been exempted from withholding taxes under the provisions of Article 46 (12) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act reports that there is a separate representative among the officers who are stockholders, the reported person shall be the representative, and

(a) Where the person of accrual is a stockholder (not including stockholders who are officers or employees), the dividends of the person of accrual;

(b) If the person to whom it belongs is an officer or employee, the bonus to the person to whom it reverts;

(c) Where the person to whom it belongs is a corporation or an individual operating the business, other outflow from the company: Provided, That it shall be limited to where the distributed profit constitutes the income for each business year of a domestic corporation or a domestic business place of a foreign corporation under the provisions of Article 94 of the Act or the business income of a resident or a non-resident under

(d) Other income of the person to whom it reverts, in case where the person to whom it reverts is the person.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The transfer of the instant land and the right to implement the project between ○ Company and ○ Construction (B)

A certificate) and a settlement agreement (No. 9-1) include only ○ enterprise and the Plaintiff as the seller, and only ○ Construction as the buyer, and ○ Metal as the buyer is not indicated as the contracting party. In addition, in the settlement confirmation (No. 10-1) and settlement statement (No. 10-2) confirming that settlement of accounts for ○○ Construction has been completed, only ○○ enterprise and the Plaintiff were written as the confirmation person along with the respective certificate of personal seal impression, and ○ Metal has not been written.

(2) The ○○ Company held a board of directors and decided to reduce the transfer price of the instant land and the project implementation right from KRW 3.985 billion to KRW 3.82 billion (Evidence B-2). At the time of the decision to reduce the transfer price as above, it appears that the ○ Company made a decision on the premise that the ○○ Metal was a transferor, not entirely mentioning about the ○○ Metal at the time of the decision to reduce the transfer price. There is no evidence as to the fact that the ○○ Company obtained the consent of the ○ Metal or consulted with the ○ Metal upon the prior or subsequent decision to reduce the transfer price.

(3) Of Chapter 15 of a Promissory note paid by ○ Construction to ○○ enterprise as transfer price, bills submitted under this law are five. The above bills are written by ○ Construction as the issuer, and ○ Company as the payee.

(4) ○ metal is KRW 123 million in net assets at the time of the contract for the transfer of the instant land and the right to implement the project.

It was excessive in Korea, and the present is the state of closure.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 8 and 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to the assertion related to ○ Metal

As seen above in the facts of recognition.In light of the parties to the settlement agreement, the details and method of reduction of the transfer price, the financial position of ○ Metal at the time, etc., it is insufficient to recognize that the agreement was concluded between ○ enterprise and ○ Metal to share 50% of the share in the project implementation right of this case between ○○ enterprise and ○ Metal, or that ○ Metal received KRW 1.5 billion of the transfer amount directly from ○○ Construction under the pretext of return of the investment amount, and there is no other evidence to support this, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

(2) Where a corporation fails to enter its sales in the account book despite the fact of sales in relation to the claim for deduction of the amount equivalent to the cost, barring any special circumstance, the total omitted sales, including the cost amount, shall be deemed to have been leaked out out of the company. In this case, the special circumstance to deem that the omitted sales amount was not leaked out of the company shall be proved by the party asserting it (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002). In the case of the instant disposition based on the disposal of income due to the omission of part of the transfer price of ○○ enterprise, the Plaintiff shall prove the circumstances that the Plaintiff was used as the cost equivalent to KRW 280,000,000 out of the omitted sales amount and thus,

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone pertaining to the transfer of the instant land and the right to implement the project

In addition to KRW 180,000,000 which has already been appropriated as losses, ○ Construction shall pay the amount transferred.

In lieu of ○ Civil Works, ○○, and ○○, even though 200 million won was paid to ○○○, ○○, and ○○.

In 199, it is not sufficient to recognize that the return of corporate tax was filed by omitting it by itself at the time of filing a return of corporate tax in 199, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the plaintiff

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, 1.28,500,000 which was omitted by the Defendant out of the transfer amount of the instant land and the right to implement the project.

The inclusion of the entire cost in the gross income and the disposal of it as a bonus to the plaintiff is legitimate;

Accordingly, the instant disposition is also lawful.

3. Facts of recognition;

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.