Daw Construction Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Byung-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

1. Of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant changed the amount of income belonging to the year of 1983 business to the Plaintiff as of March 5, 1985 to KRW 909,887,259, and the Defendant’s change to KRW 874,679,651 among them, the Defendant’s notice of change in the amount of income to be disposed of in the normal conditions of the representative, and the Plaintiff’s notice of change in the amount of income, and the tax withholding Class A earned income amounting to the year of 1983 as of May 16, 1985, the Defendant’s notice of tax payment of KRW 519,28,340 and the tax withholding class A earned income amounting to KRW 94,430,280 as of February 11, 1985, the Defendant’s notice of tax payment of KRW 84,570 and KRW 16,916,130 as of February 11, 1985.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 85,658,060 for the business year of 1982, KRW 12,526,230 for the plaintiff, KRW 384,482,610 for the business year of 1983 as of March 5, 1985, and each disposition of KRW 78,405,10 for the defense tax of KRW 388,40 for the business year of 1983 as of March 5, 1985, and each disposition of KRW 78,405,10 for the defense tax, shall be revoked, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Determination on the change of income amount, the notification and disposition of the change of income amount, and the request for cancellation of the tax payment notice disposition;

First, we examine the plaintiff's claim to revoke the disposition imposing tax on Class A earned income accrued in the business year of 1982 and the defense tax.

The plaintiff collected 157,93,732 won omitted in the return of the tax base of the plaintiff's tax base for the 1982 business year through field investigation, and notified the change of the income amount to be disposed of as a result of recognition of the representative for the reason that it is unclear to vest in the calculation of the income. Since the plaintiff's deposit is terminated by voluntary payment of the tax base for the 1982 business year, the defendant requested the defendant who seized the plaintiff's deposit without any legal basis on February 11, 1985, before he paid the above 84,570,850 won from the above plaintiff's deposit and 16,916,130 won from the above 197, 197, 309, 400, 97, 97, 97, 90, 130 won from the above plaintiff's deposit and 97, 90, 97, 97, 97, 97, 90, 2, 97, 2, 97, 97, .

Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 22(2)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate that the obligation to pay national taxes is established at the time of paying the amount of income withheld at source and the amount of tax is determined without any special procedure; Article 150(4) of the Income Tax Act and Article 198 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the relevant corporation shall be deemed to have paid the amount of income on the date when the notice of change of amount of income is received; therefore, with respect to the amount of income resulting from the determination of representative under the Corporate Tax Act, the statutory tax rate shall be automatically determined without the taxpayer's report or the decision of imposing the person liable to pay taxes on the date when the notice of change of amount of income is served on the relevant corporation. According to Article 2 subparag. 9 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a withholding agent under various tax laws belongs to a taxpayer, and under Article 9(1)3 of the National Tax Collection Act, a notice of tax payment to a withholding agent shall not be automatically imposed at the time of tax payment by the tax authority.

Therefore, in this case, even if the plaintiff, like the plaintiff's head, paid the above withholding income tax and the above defense tax without any choice by the defendant's employment, the defendant's receipt of such tax cannot be deemed an administrative disposition, not a confirmatory disposition, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking its revocation is unlawful since there is no administrative disposition that is the object of the administrative litigation.

Next, the plaintiff's notice of change in the income amount accrued to the business year of 1983 and the notice of change in the income amount accrued to the business year of the same business year and whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate in relation to the cancellation claim of the disposition of tax withholding tax

In light of the whole purport of pleadings, Gap evidence 1-2 (Tax Payment Notice), Gap evidence 2 (Income Change Notice), Gap evidence 4-2 (Examination and Appeal Notice), Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and Eul evidence 3-1 (Ruling of each Decision) without dispute, the defendant calculated the above disposition of dismissal of 909,87,259 won for the business year of 1983 and the above disposition of dismissal of 300 won for the same tax base, the plaintiff calculated the above disposition of dismissal of 380 won for the tax payment as corporate tax base, and calculated the above disposition of dismissal of 384,482,610 won for the defense income and 78,405,100 won for the above defense income and the above disposition of dismissal of 400 won for the same tax base, and the plaintiff calculated the above disposition of dismissal of 90 won for the tax payment without any difference of the net income amount on the balance sheet as corporate tax, 305,6784.6

In light of the above facts, the above disposition of corporate tax, etc. and the above disposition of tax payment notice of Class A earned income tax, etc. are subject to the former income of the corporation, and the latter are related to each other. However, the former disposition of the income amount is not subject to the latter, but can not affect the latter. In addition, the decision of the representative or the notice of change of income amount is merely a preliminary measure or a prior procedure to establish a withholding obligation, and as seen above, the withholding obligation itself is automatically established and confirmed at the time of payment or deemed payment without waiting the tax office's taxation disposition, and it cannot be deemed that the notice of change of income amount itself was an administrative disposition subject to the appeal lawsuit independently, and it cannot be said that it was modified to the above disposition of tax payment notice of Class A earned income tax, etc. of the above withholding tax, and it was not subject to the judgment on the legitimacy thereof. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the above disposition of tax payment notice of Class A earned income tax, etc. of the above withholding tax under the previous trial procedure.

However, the plaintiff asserted that the above notice of tax payment of Class A, earned income tax, etc. on September 25, 1986, stated on the 9th day of pleading of the trial at the court at the court at the court at the court at the court at the court at the court at the court at the court at the court at the court at the court at the court at the court on September 25, 1986, is null and void due to significant and obvious defects, but there is no change to the purport of the claim in addition to the preliminary action to confirm the invalidity.

Therefore, the notice of change in the amount of income cannot be subject to administrative litigation, and the above notice of tax payment, such as Class A earned income tax, etc. withheld at source, does not meet the requirements for administrative appeal, and the lawsuit of this case against each cancellation claim is unlawful

2. Determination on the revocation of the disposition of corporate tax and the same defense tax.

위 을제1호증의1, 2, 각 성립에 다툼이 없는 을 제1호증의3내지6(각 세액계산서, 과세표준계산서, 보충조서), 을제2호증의 1내지4, 을 제5호증의9, 10(각 확인서로서 을 제7내지9, 13, 14, 16호증과 같은 바, 원고는 강박에 의하여 작성된 것이라고 항변하나, 이에 부합하는 듯한 증인 박종훈의 증언은 증인 김용식의 증언에 비추어 믿지 아니하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거없다), 을 제4호증의3(면적집계표), 을제5호증의3내지6, 11내지16(각 과세표준 및 세액계산서, 조사서, 보충조서, 합계표, 조정명세서, 을 제5호증의6은 을 제6호증과 같다), 을 제10호증의1, 2(각 공사수입명세서, 세금계산서수취내역서), 을 제12호증(계산조서), 증인 박종훈의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제13호증의 1내지3(각 확인서)의 각 기재와 위 박종훈, 김용식, 증인 주성수의 각 증언(다만, 위 박종훈, 주성수의 각 증언중 다음에서 믿지 아니하는 부분은 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고회사(그 명칭은 성립시에는 동지건설 주식회사였다가 1974. 4. 9. 세방토건주식회사로, 1982. 7. 14. 대유건설 주식회사로, 1985. 2. 26. 현재의 상호로 각 변경)는 건설부장관으로부터 건서업면허를 받아 설립이래 건설업에 종사하여 오는 회사인데, 1981. 12. 22.경 원고회사 발행의 약속어음과 당좌수표 액면금 총액 금9억 6천여만원의 부도가 발생하여 대표이사인 소외 김석진이 행방을 감춰버리자 회사채권자 약120명이 1982. 1.경 채권자단을 구성하고 소외 주성수등 4명의 공동대표를 선출하여 종전의 경영자인 대표이사 김석진 대신 1984. 7.경까지 위 회사를 운영하여 온 사실, 위 채권자대표들은 1982 사업년도중 소외 주식회사 태원의 공장증축공사를 비롯한 13건의 공사도금을 받아 합계금1,235,750,281원의 공사수입을 얻고, 원고회사의 건설업면허를 대여하여 원고회사 명의로 건설공사를 하게 함으로써 총102건에 걸쳐 면허대여 연건축면적 49,730.48평(164,398,315평방미터)에 대하여 평당 금3,000원 내지 3,500원의 수수료수입을 얻었으며, 1983 사업년도중에는 소외 코리아스파이서 주식회사의 건물신축공사를 비롯한 10건의 공사도급을 받아 합계금2,099,233,515원의 공사수입을 얻고, 원고회사의 건설업면허를 대여하여 총608건에 이르는 연건축면적 226,836.18평(749,871,742평방미터)에 대하여 역시 평당 금3,000원 내지 3,500원의 수수료수입을 얻은 사실, 원고는 1982 사업년도중 앞서 본 총 102건의 면허대여중 2건의 명의대여 공사도급금액 금51,600,000원을 공사수입으로 오류기장한 것을 제외한 나머지는 전혀 아무런 기장도 하지 아니하였고, 위 사업년도 결산서상 위 2건의 명의대여 공사도급금액을 앞서 본 13건의 위 사업년도 직영공사 수입금1,235,750,281원중 금1,151,638,281원과 합한 금1,203,238,281원을 총수입금액으로 하여 당기순손실 금1,184,008원으로 회계처리하였으며, 위 사업년도귀속 1983. 3. 2.자 법인세과세표준신고를 거쳐 같은해 8. 30. 자 수정신고를 함에 있어서도 공사도급금액의 일부와 면허대여 수수료수입을 누락시켜 법인세 과세표준금액을 신고조정에 따른 금5,565,639원으로 신고하였는 바, 피고는 신고내용에 오류 및 탈루가 있다 하여 과세표준과 세액을 경정함에 있어서 실지조사를 거쳐 신고내용중 잡손실 금20,000원과 원재료평가감 금1,005,000원을 적출하여 손금부인, 익금가산하고, 또한 공사수입금9,994,000원을 조사금액으로 적출하여 익금가산하여 위 각 익금가산액을 신고조정익금80,866,647원(그 중 금74,500,000원은 공사수입)에 합한 총익금91,885,647원에서 위 결산상 당기순손실금1,184,008원과 신고조정손금74,117,000원을 차감한 금16,584,639원을 위 사업년도 귀속 법인세과세표준으로 삼아 법인세 금3,498,103원과 동 방위세 금581,803원을 경정결정하여 부과고지 하였다가 전국 시, 군에 조회하여 건물준공자료를 수집하는등 재조사를 실시하여 앞서 본 위 사업년도의 면허대여사실을 밝혀내고, 면허대여를 받은 42명의 건축주에게 면허대여수수료의 지급액을 조회하여 대여수수료의 단가를 부가가치세를 제외한 평당 금3,177원으로 평균계산하여 위 사업년도의 면허대여수수료 총금157,993,732원(49,730.48×3,177원)을 산출, 익금가산하고 면허대여분을 직영공사분으로 기장처리한 앞서 본 금51,600,000원을 적출하여 익금불산입, 손금산입함과 동시에 그 부분에 대한 공사원가 금45,406,967원을 손금불산입, 익금산입하여, 당초의 조사시에 적출한 공사수입금9,994,000원에서 금382,000원을 면허대여분으로 제외시켜 공사수입금 적출액을 금9,612,000원으로 감액하여 위 총조사익금액 금214,037,699원(금20,000+금1,005,000+금9,612,000원+157,993,732원+금45,406,967원)에 앞서 본 신고조정익금액을 합한 총 익금294,904,346원에서 앞서 본 결산상 당기순손실금액과 신고조정손금액 및 위 조사손금51,600,000원을 차감한 금168,003,338원을 위 사업년도 귀속 법인세과세표준으로 산출하고, 이에 대하여 별지 법인세등 세액경졍결의내역표 1982 사업년도 귀속란 기재와 같이 법인세 금89,156,167원과 동 방위세 금13,108,038원의 재경정결정결의를 하여1985. 1. 5. 원고에 대하여위 재경정결정한 각 세액에서 이미 부과고지한 각 세액을 차감한 나머지인 위 사업년도 귀속 법인세 금85,658,060원과 동 방위세 금12,526,230원의 부과처분을 한 사실, 또한 원고는 1983 사업년도중 앞서 본 총 608건의 면허대여중 95건의 명의대여 공사도급금액 금6,797,023,639원을 공사수입으로 오류기장한 것을 제외한 나머지는 전혀 아무런 기장도 하지 아니하였고, 위 사업년도 결산서상 위 95건의 명의대여 공사도급금액을 앞서 본 10건의 위 사업년도 직영공사수입금 총액 금2,099,233,515원 중의 금1,768,845,515원과 합한 금8,565,869,154원을 총수입금액으로 하여 당기순이익 금35,207,608원으로 회계처리하였으며, 위 사업년도 귀속 1984. 2. 28. 자 법인세등과세표준신고와 같은해 6. 2.자 수정신고를 거쳐 같은해 8. 29.자 재수정신고를 함에있어서도 공사수입금액의 일부와 면허대여 수수료수입을 누락시켜 법인세 과세표준금액을 금41,359,993원(최종 수정신고액)으로 신고하였는 바, 피고는 신고내용에 오류 및 탈루가 있다하여 과세표준과 세액을 경정함에 있어서 실지조사를 거쳐위 10건의 공사수입금액에관하여 결산서상 무궁화연립주택 신축공사의 도급금액 및 기성고액이 금38,000,000원으로되어 있는 것을 도급금액은 금540,000,000원이고 그 중 위 사업년도 기성고는 금368,388,000원인 것을 밝혀내어 그 실지기성고액과 결산서상 기성고액의 차액 금330,388,000원을 앞서 본 결산서상에 계상된 공사수입금액 금1,768,845,515원에 합산하여 위 사업년도 귀속 총공사수입금 2,099,233,515원을 산출하고, 또한 앞서 본 바와 같은 방법으로 밝혀낸 위 사업년도의 면허대여 연건축면적에 앞서 본 평당대여수수료단가를 곱하여 위 사업년도 귀속 면허대여수입금720,658,543원(226,836.18평×3,177원)을 산출한 다음, 원고 회사가 소득금액계산에 필요한 공사도급계약서, 견적서, 자재수불부, 작업일지등 제반장부와 증빙서류를 비치하지 아니하였을 뿐만 아니라 기장에 있어서도 투입경비도 공사별로 정확히 계상하지 아니하고 공사도급금액에 따라 적당히 안분계산하는등 장부 기타 증빙서류에 의하여 소득금액을 계산할 수 없도록 되어 있었으므로 법인세법 제32조제3항 단서 , 같은법 시행령 제93조제2항제1호 의 규정에 따라 위 총공사수입금2,099,233,515원에 건설업종의 소득표준율 9.3퍼센트를 곱하여 산출한 금195,228,716원에서 대표자급료 금6,000,000원을 공제한 금189,228,716원을 공사수입에 관한 소득금액으로 추계하고, 위 소득금액에 위 면허대여수수료수입금720,658,543원을 누락익금으로 추가한 합계금909,887,259원을 위 사업년도 법인세 과세표준으로 삼아 별지 법인세등 세액경정결의내역표 1983 사업년도 귀속란 기재와 같이 법인세와 동 방위세의 경정결정결의를 하여 앞서 본바와 같이 1985. 3. 5. 원고에 대하여 위 사업년도 귀속 법인세 금384,482,610원과 동 방위세 금 78,405,100원의 부과처분을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 어긋나는 위 박종훈, 주성수의 각 일부증언은 위에 거시한 각 증거에 비추어 믿지 아니하며 달리 반증없다.

First, the Plaintiff asserts that the above revenues from the license loan is revenues obtained by the Plaintiff Company's own license for construction business regardless of the intention of the Plaintiff Company, and they cannot be attributed to the creditors' revenues from the Plaintiff Company. Thus, the Plaintiff alleged that the above revenues cannot be attributed to the Plaintiff Company's revenues from the legal principles of substantial taxation. As such, the Plaintiff's 1 to 284, and 12-1 to 391, respectively, and the above 7-year-old shares of the Plaintiff Company's 1 to 391 (each promissory note and the per share per share per share) were used for the above 7-year-old general meeting of the Plaintiff Company's 5-year-old general meeting of the Plaintiff Company's 7-year-old general meeting of the Plaintiff Company's 5-year-old general meeting of the Plaintiff Company's 20-old representative director and the above 2-year-old representative director's 7-year-old general meeting of the Plaintiff Company's 120-old representative director's shares.

According to the above facts, in order for the creditor group of the plaintiff company to secure the repayment of its claim under the implied consent of the representative director of the plaintiff company, the representative director of the plaintiff company has been acting for or managed in the name of the representative director of the plaintiff company during each business year, and all legal effects arising from the direct contract work and the name lending of the construction business are attributed to the plaintiff company, so the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

Next, even if the above license fee revenue belongs to the plaintiff, since it is incidental profit generated in relation to the construction business, it shall be calculated by multiplying the total amount of construction contract revenue by the standard rate of income of the construction business type. If the above license fee revenue is not incidental profit related to the construction business, it shall be deemed that it constitutes a loan of a business license under Article 25 (1) 7 of the Income Tax Act, and it shall be calculated separately by applying 20 percent of the income standard rate. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that it is erroneous that the above license fee revenue is calculated by treating the above license fee revenue as a simple omission of gross income and then the tax base and tax amount for each business year of the above business year is calculated.

In the calculation of the income amount belonging to the business year of 1982, first of all, the above license loan revenue shall not be erroneous in treating it as simple omission income unless it is the incidental revenue related to the construction business, or any other non-profit profit or special profit. In the calculation of the income amount belonging to the business year of 1983, the Corporate Tax Act does not provide for the estimation of the income amount by the standard income ratio, and it appears that it is used under the Income Tax Act, because Article 28 of the Income Tax Act and Article 54 (2) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the total business revenue amount related to the business income shall be the business revenue amount including incidental revenue related to the business, and the standard income ratio shall be the average income rate calculated by dividing the total business revenue amount from several business revenue amounts of the same business type less the corresponding expenses, and so the income amount and expenses other than the corresponding expenses shall be the estimate of the income amount from construction business revenue and the corresponding expenses which shall be multiplied by the basic income amount related to the construction business revenue or the corresponding expenses.

However, a company running a construction business shall obtain revenues by directly managing construction works such as civil engineering and construction, or by subcontracting to the extent permitted under the Construction Business Act. Since the Construction Business Act prohibits lending of a construction business license by stipulating it as the grounds for cancellation of license and punishment, it shall not be so-called incidental income ordinarily incidental to the construction business. Therefore, it shall not be possible to calculate the amount of income belonging to the business year by multiplying the total amount of income of the construction business by the standard rate of income of the construction business type added to the total amount of income.

Furthermore, as to whether the income amount should be calculated by multiplying the income amount by the standard rate of other income different from that of the type of construction business, and if a corporation operates several types of business, the business revenue amount shall be determined by the type of business and the amount of the income shall be calculated (Article 47 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the income standard rate for the type of business with no income standard rate shall be applied to the category of business with no income standard rate, and that the above license loan income shall be applied to the type of business with no income standard rate). However, the above license loan income shall not be deemed to fall under the other income, such as the Plaintiff’s head of the place of illegal income not belonging to the Plaintiff company’s business purpose, and even if it falls under the domestic affairs, it is difficult to see that the license loan that generates such other income is a separate type of business. Therefore, it cannot be separately calculated by multiplying the above license loan income amount by the other income rate.

Ultimately, the license fee revenue for each business year in question is a special profit other than the business normally generated in the construction business, and it does not require any expenses other than the general management expenses in its nature, and even according to the testimony of the above majority, it is difficult to recognize the fact that any special expenses other than the general management expenses have actually been paid in order to obtain the above license fee revenue, and since the general management expenses are included in the expense limit corresponding to the construction revenue, there is no error in the fact that the total amount of the above loan fee collected by the defendant from the research amount is added to the income amount for the construction revenue for each business year in question, so the imposition of corporate tax and the same defense tax is legitimate.

3. If so, this case's lawsuit is unlawful as to the plaintiff's notice of change of income amount and Gap's income tax withheld for the business year 1982 and 1983, and the cancellation claim of the above defense tax payment notice, and it is dismissed, and the remaining claims are without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the plaintiff's expense which is the losing party.

Judge Gyeong-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)