Whether it is a duplicate investigation

As long as there are taxation data derived from the primary tax investigation conducted by the Plaintiff in relation to the Plaintiff’s primary tax investigation, the Plaintiff’s receipt of the processed tax invoice constitutes “where there is clear evidence to acknowledge the suspicion of tax evasion” and cannot be deemed as constituting a duplicate tax investigation.

Article 81-4 (Prohibition of Abuse of Tax Investigation Authority)

2013Guhap5239 Corporate Tax, etc. Revocation of Disposition

AAAA

AA Head of the Tax Office

March 4, 2014

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 136,206,200 of corporate tax for the business year 2006 against the Plaintiff on September 5, 201, and KRW 24,387,70 of corporate tax for the business year 2009, KRW 96,700 of value-added tax for the business year 2006, KRW 13,918,770 of value-added tax for the first year 2007, KRW 4,015,800 of value-added tax for the second year 2008, KRW 69,373,360 of value-added tax for the first year 2009, and KRW 16,09, and KRW 210 of value-added tax for the second year 209.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was established on October 1, 2002 and discontinued on December 17, 2010, as a company engaged in manufacturing and distributing wired and wireless telecommunications devices, and manufacturing and selling game instruments and software.

B. From April 4, 2011 to June 9, 201, the Defendant conducted an investigation related to trade order with the Plaintiff from the first period of 2006 to the first period of 2009 (from January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2009) (hereinafter referred to as the “tax investigation of this case”). As a result, the Defendant confirmed the processed purchase and processed sale without real transactions as shown in the table 1 and 2, and issued 136,206,200, 200, 200, 2009, 207, 307, 208, 206, 307, 206, 207, 207, 2006, 307, 209, 207, 207, 300, 207, 207, 2006, 307, 209.

[Attachment 1] Processing and Purchase (unit: 1,000 won)

Value of business transaction taxable period

1 Stock****

1 January 2007 20,000

2 December 2008 45,000

2AA Corporation

1 January 2006 204,727

2,206 284,436

3 Co. ***** Korea, 1 January 2009 370,477

4 Co., Ltd.***tech, 247,700 January 2008

5 Stock Company**** Technology

1 January 2007 77,000

1 January 2009 54,500

6*** Software Co., Ltd. 1, 2006 310,940

7 Co., Ltd.** Enflaz, February 2, 2009 151,314

Joints 1,766,094

[Attachment 2] Processing Sales (unit: 00 won)

Value of business transaction taxable period

1 Co., Ltd.*teck 1, 2008 250,000

2 Co., Ltd.****

1 January 2006 317,351

2, 2006 99,560

December 2, 2007 88,000

January 2008 252,000

January 2009 3,800

3 UNFCCC**

December 2, 2006 60,000

1 January 2007 30,000

December 2, 2007 50,000

1 January 2008 50,000

2 December 2008 30,000

1 January 2009 22,500

Joint 1,253,211

C. The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an objection on December 30, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on March 14, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of all pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Although the Defendant is obligated to notify the Plaintiff of the tax items to be investigated, the period and reason for the investigation, and other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree 10 days prior to the commencement of the investigation pursuant to Article 81-7 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”), the Defendant did not make such prior notification prior to the investigation of the instant case. Thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(2) The burden of proof of the taxation requirement is, in principle, against the Plaintiff, who is the taxable authority. In this case, the Defendant failed to prove the taxation requirement, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(3) In light of the fact that when undergoing the first tax investigation, a public official engaged in tax investigation conducted all details of transactions not later than five years prior to the date of the investigation, the Plaintiff submitted relevant data for five years, and the instant tax investigation is based on data submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the first tax investigation, etc., the first tax investigation and the instant tax investigation overlap with the tax items and the taxable periods, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful as it was based on the tax investigation conducted in violation of the prohibition of duplicate investigation under Article 81-4 of the

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As to the Plaintiff’s first argument

Article 81-7 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that when a tax official investigates account books, documents, and other articles for the purpose of the investigation on national taxes, he/she shall notify the taxpayer to be investigated (where a taxpayer designates a tax manager pursuant to Article 82 and reports it to the head of the competent tax office; hereinafter the same shall apply in this Article) of the items of investigation, the period and reasons for investigation, and other matters as prescribed by the Presidential Decree not later than 10 days prior to the commencement of the investigation: Provided, That in cases of investigation or prior notice of an offence case,

As to the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant comprehensively considering the overall purport of arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence No. 3, namely, the Plaintiff had already undergone a tax investigation by the Defendant on suspicion of receiving processed tax invoices before conducting the instant tax investigation, and as a result, ***** 113,682,00 won from information and communications and *** 60,286,000 won from Enz. 1, 206 ******* ** * * ** 317,00,00,000 won issued false tax invoices without real trade, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no violation of law in light of the Plaintiff’s prior notice *370,000,00 won from Korea * 1,206 *300,000 won prior notice of the instant case’s destruction of evidence, etc.

(2) As to the second argument of the Plaintiff

In general, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirement in a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing tax should be borne by the imposing authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts alleged in the facts of taxation requirement in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process are proved, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirement unless the other party proves that the facts at issue are not eligible for the application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 2002). In a case where a tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by a taxpayer has been falsely prepared without real transactions by the tax authority, and it is argued that the purpose of using the expenses claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment have been proved to be false, it is difficult for the taxpayer to present books and evidentiary documents as to the fact that such expenses have been actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 195; 2006Du6464, Apr. 1664).

On the other hand, it is confirmed that the remaining amount of value-added tax was transferred to the Plaintiff’s corporate passbook or the Plaintiff’s representative director BB’s personal passbook after the Plaintiff paid the purchase price to the purchaser, and the remaining amount was returned to the Plaintiff’s corporate passbook or the Plaintiff’s corporate director BB’s personal passbook after the Plaintiff received the transaction price from the purchaser, or it was confirmed that the remaining amount was returned to cash after the Plaintiff received the transaction price from the purchaser as the passbook or the Plaintiff’s personal passbook, or that the remaining amount was re-transfered by the Plaintiff’s personal passbook of the purchaser. ② The Plaintiff’s representative director BB had already been accused of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the National Tax Service on the basis of the pertinent tax investigation (the Plaintiff’s personal passbook of the head of the passbook or the Plaintiff’s personal passbook). The Plaintiff’s judgment did not have any reasonable doubt as to each of the above facts charged by the Plaintiff on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was not guilty.

(3) As to the third argument by the Plaintiff

(A) Facts of recognition

1) The Defendant: (a) received a tax invoice of KRW 773,00,00 from information and communications without real trade; (b) selected the Plaintiff as a person subject to investigation on suspicion that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 170,000,000,000 to the second half-year Co., Ltd. (***** without real trade) in 209; and (c) found the Plaintiff as a person subject to investigation on August 18, 2010 to October 22, 2010 (from July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009) and found that the investigation on trade order was conducted during the second half-year (hereinafter referred to as the “first tax investigation”); and (d) found the Plaintiff as an information and communications**68,200,000 among the tax invoices received from the business **60,608,608,600.

2) Around October 2010, the Defendant dealt with the taxation data taken over in relation to the Plaintiff’s primary tax investigation as follows.

Results of processing data of the taxable period (in thousand won)

Correction of the second tax invoice, number of 141,050 sales omitted (60,000,000) in 205, and non-deduction of the input tax amount for the transaction with the person who has discontinued the business, and data diffusion

6,363 Business operator's error entry in the first tax invoice in 2006, non-deduction of the amount of tax traded between the business operator and the business operator, and data dissemination

The notice of suspicion of the Second Data 2.2.342,00 transaction amount of KRW 355,320,000 shall be determined as the account transfer, etc. transaction, and the sale of non-data (139,090,000) and the refund (141,318,000 won) on February 2, 2007 shall be corrected.

3) The Defendant corrected and corrected the Plaintiff’s value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax in 2005, KRW 12,465,360 for the year 205, KRW 1,067, KRW 178 for the year 2006, KRW 22,557, KRW 762 for the year 2006, KRW 23,564,802 for the first period of value-added tax in 2007, KRW 29 for the year 29, KRW 29,452, KRW 782, KRW 039 for the year 2005, KRW 37,801, KRW 161 for the year 206, corporate tax for the year 41,90, KRW 407 for the year 207, corporate tax for the year 209, KRW 6020 for the business year 20 for the year 206.

4) Meanwhile, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice with no real transaction in KRW 317,00,00 to the first period of 2006 *******************************’s company in the first period of 2009 and the first period of 2006 that the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice with no real transaction in KRW 310,00,000 from software. From April 4, 201 to June 9, 201, the Defendant selected the Plaintiff as a person subject to investigation. The instant tax investigation was conducted from April 9, 201 to June 9, 201, and the instant disposition was conducted based on the results.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 3 through 6 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

(B) Determination

Article 81-4 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "Tax officials shall not conduct reinvestigations on the same items of taxation and the same taxable period unless they fall under any of the following subparagraphs," and provides that they may conduct reinvestigations on the same items of taxation and the same taxable period of taxation (Article 81-4 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes) where there is evident evidence to acknowledge the suspicion of tax evasion (Article 1), where investigation is necessary (Article 2 (2)), where there is errors in relation to the other party of taxation in relation to two or more business years (Article 65 (1) 3 (including cases where it is applied mutatis mutandis under Articles 66 (6) and 81), and other cases prescribed by Presidential Decree which are similar to those under subparagraphs 1 through 4 (Article 66 (4)).

As to this case, the following circumstances, i.e., ① the period for investigating the first tax investigation from July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, while the period for investigating the tax investigation of this case from January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2009 (from January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2009) were different from the period for investigating the tax investigation of this case; ② the first tax investigation of this case was conducted on the second period of 2009 * 73,000,000 won without information and communication * 100,000 won * the Plaintiff’s new tax investigation of this case’s new tax investigation of this case’s new tax investigation of this case’s previous tax investigation of this case’s previous tax investigation of this case’s previous tax investigation of this case’s previous tax investigation of this case’s previous tax investigation of this case’s previous tax investigation of this case’s 2000, 1606.

3. Conclusion

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