Jeju District Court 201Guhap772 (No. 17, 2013)

Money, other than part of this title with reasonable and correct authenticity, is recognized as a fact of payment.

In light of the fact that related data, such as the statement of number of units and financial transaction information, submitted are consistent with the part corresponding to the statement of this list, the content of this list can be the basis for the on-site investigation on the ground that it is reasonable and correct unless there is any clear statement contrary to other financial data, and the amount excluding part of it is recognized as a fact of payment.

The exclusion period for national tax assessment under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Nu125 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

AA

○ Head of tax office

December 11, 2013

January 8, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of global income tax for the Plaintiff on October 4, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200,00,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00).

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff seeking cancellation is revoked. The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax (including additional tax) on October 4, 200, and the imposition of global income tax on global income tax on global income over KRW ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (including additional tax) on global income over KRW 20 years, and the imposition of global income tax on KRW 20 years over KRW ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (including additional tax), global income tax on global income over KRW 20 years, and the imposition of global income tax on KRW ○○○○○○○(including additional tax) on global income tax over KRW 20 years, and the imposition of additional tax on KRW 20 years after deducting KRW ○○○○○○○○○(including additional tax) on global income tax on global income over KRW 20 years. The imposition of global income tax on KRW 200 (including the imposition of additional tax) is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasons why the court should explain this case are as follows: (a) the calculation table of the amount of political party tax stated in the relevant laws and regulations listed in the separate sheet No. 1 of the court of first instance and the separate sheet No. 4 shall be replaced by the calculation table of the amount of the political party tax stated in the separate sheet No. 1 of the court of first instance; and (b) as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of

B. Parts used for repair;

"1) The first instance court imposed global income tax on 2 pages 16,17 of the judgment, and paid it." Eul paid the global income tax on 2 pages 16,17 of the judgment."

"3) On the 3rd page of the first instance judgment, the 15th ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”) shall be replaced by the 3rd page 2 of the first instance judgment as follows.

"5) The fourth and fourth 6 pages of the first instance court's decision is "the amount of self-denunciation" as "the amount of interest income", and the fourth 9 to 24 pages of the first instance court's decision are as follows.

"F. After that, according to the result of the above ex officio correction, the defendant corrected the amount of comprehensive income tax imposed on October 4, 200, as above. Accordingly, the amount of tax payable to the plaintiff as global income for the 20 XX or 20 XX years is as stated in the column (the remaining amount after deducting the already paid tax amount, etc. from the corrected tax amount recorded in the table "the corrected tax amount" of the same table) ("each disposition of imposing global income tax for the plaintiff determined after the correction of the above reduction)." * The above revised tax amount for the 20 XX years or 20 years for the above 20 XX years for the plaintiff. * The revised tax amount for the 20 XX years was originally reported and paid to the plaintiff as global income tax for the 20 XX years and then paid to the plaintiff as global income tax for the 20 XX years and the amount calculated by adding the amount of tax for the 20 XX years or 200 years for the defendant to the 20000 won and the whole amount calculated from the 0000 won.

"7) Upon being sentenced to 5 pages 5 of the judgment of the first instance court, the plaintiff appealed from ○○ District Court 20 XX5, and on July 25, 200, the above court reversed the judgment of the court below and sentenced the plaintiff not guilty on the ground that the plaintiff actively concealed or discarded account books related to credit business beyond non-declaration or false declaration. The prosecutor appeals against the above appellate court judgment, "the above case is still in progress with the Supreme Court", "8) 6 pages 13, 14, and 14 of the judgment of the first instance court 5 pages 5, 8) , and 9) . . . . . . . . . . 2 of the first instance court 2 of the judgment of the first instance court 2 of the first instance court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 of the judgment of the second instance court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .).... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . ... . .... ..... . ........... . . ........ ...... . .. . . ....

"『이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 갑 제4호증의 2, 갑 제7호증의 7 내지 10, 29, 을 제3 내지 7, 9, 10, 12, 13호증, 을 제30호증의 1 내지 13의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들，즉 ① 원고는 이 사건에서 2001.부터 2008.까지의 기간 동안 대부업을 영위하는 동안 별도의 장부는 작성하지 않았고, 다만 채무자들로부터 차용증 및 약속어음 등을 교부받아 이를 보관하다가 대여원리금이 모두 변제되면 채무자에게 차용증 등을 반환하는 방식으로 채무자들과의 채권채무관계를 관리하였다고 주장하고 있으나，원고는 대부업을 영위하는 사업자로서 소득세법 제160조 제1항에 따라 성실하게 장부를 비치 . 기록할 의무가 있을 뿐 아니라, 장기간 동안 상당한 규모의 대부업에 종사하였음에도 불구하고(을 제3호증의 기재에 의하면，20XX. 부터 20XX.까지의 기간 동안 원고의 금융거래 규모는 입금거래 총 ○○○○건 합계액 ○○○○원，출금거래 총 ○○○○건 합계 ○○○○원에 이르는 사실을 인정 할 수 있다) 위와 같이 아무런 장부를 작성하지 않았다는 것은 그 자체로 매우 이례적인 점，② 더욱이 원고는 20XX. 7. 28.부터 같은 해 9. 2.까지 사이에 19XX년 내지 20XX년도 귀속 종합소득세와 관련하여 그 부과대상인 대부업 사업소득에 관하여 조세범처벌법 위반혐의로 조사를 받은 적이 있었는데, 당시에도 원고는 대부업에 관한 장부를 제출하라는 세무공무원의 요구에 대해 자신은 장부를 전혀 작성하지 않았다는 태도로 일관하였던 점, ③ 또한，원고는 이 사건 세무조사 당시 세무서에는 거래장부 등을 작성 . 비치하지 않았다고 주장하면서 일체의 자료를 제출하지 않았는데，이후 행정심판단계에 이르러 거래자료의 개별확인서가 제출되자 '대손 관련 서류 및 어음 사본' 을 제시하는 등 존재하지 않는다던 관련 서류를 자신에게 불리한 입장이 되면 제출하였던 점, ④ 원고가 채무자들과의 거래에 특별한 이유 없이 자신의 딸인 CCC의 명의를 반복적으로 사용하였던 점(갑 제4호증의 2, 갑 제7호증의 29, 을 제3, 9, 10, 12, 13호증, 을 제30호증의 12의 각 기재에 의하면，원고는 20XX.경 자신이 관리하는 CCC 명의의 계좌를 통해 채무자 BBB로부터 총 ○○○○원의 이자를 수령하는 한편, 20XX. 7. 20.부터 20XX. 9. 24.까지 사이의 기간 동안에는 CCC 명의로 채무자 BBB가 교부하는 당좌수표에 관하여 총 ○○건의 당좌거래를 한 사실, 원고는 20XX. 1. 2. 부터 20XX. 1..7.까지 사이의 기간 동안에도 여러 번에 걸쳐 CCC 명의의 계좌를 사채거래에 사용한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있다), ⑤ 원고는 채무자들과의 거래 당시 현금거래를 많이 하였고, 채무자들로부터 채무상환을 받고도 영수증을 발급해주거나 자신이 보관하고 있던 차용증을 돌려주는 등의 조치를 취하지 않았던 점 등의 비추어 보면, 원고의 위와 같은 일련의 행위는 조세포탈의 의도를 가지고 거래장부 등을 처음부터 고의적으로 작성하지 않거나 이를 은닉함으로써 조세의 부과징수를 불능 또는 현저하게 곤란하게 하는 적극적인 행위로서 국세기본법 제26조의2 제1항 제1호의 사기 기타 부정한 행위에 해당한다고 봄이 상당하다.』", "12) 제1심 판결문 10면 5행의○○○○원,'을○○○○원,'으로 고친다.", "13) 제1심 판결문 11면 2행 내지 4행의사실, 이 사건 형사 사건 재판부는, 원고가 DDD부터 이자 명목으로 위 확인서 기재와 같이 합계 ○○○○원을 지급받았다고 인정한 사실을'사실을'로 고친다.", "14) 제1심 판결문 13면 12행의○○○○원'을○○○○원'으로 고친다.", "15) 제1심 판결문 15면 9, 10행의 '변경하였고, 위 법원도 그에 따른 범죄사실을 인정한 사실을'을 '변경한 사실을'로 고친다.", "16) 제1심 판결문 이유 부분에 기재된EEE'을 'FFF'으로 고친다.",17) 제1심 판결문 19면 2행 내지 10행을 아래와 같이 고친다.

As seen earlier, “○○○○○○○○” is as follows. The justifiable tax amount of global income tax (including additional tax) for each of the following calendar years is as indicated in the attached table No. 4 (i.e., the global income tax + the additional tax + the additional tax + the additional tax + the additional tax + ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on a global income) in 20 XX years, and in 20 XX years, the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on a negligent tax + the additional tax + the additional tax) (i.e., the global income tax + the additional tax + the additional tax + the additional tax + the additional tax for an additional tax for an additional tax) in 20 XX years.

Therefore, among the disposition of imposition of global income tax (including additional tax) belonging to 20 XX years, corresponding to the difference between the corrected tax amount determined in each disposition of this case and the global income tax (including additional tax) belonging to 20 XX years (= global income tax ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW + additional tax ＋ global income tax ＋ global income tax (including additional tax) belonging to 20 XX years, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s tax imposition disposition on global income (including additional tax) + additional tax ＋ global income tax £« global income tax (including ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s tax imposition disposition on global income from among the disposition of imposition of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ tax (including additional tax).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.