Whether the estimated income of a corporation in a state of insolvency after closure is possible to be adjusted by simple expense rate;

Since the fact that directors have been appointed and registered even after the report on business closure is filed, the fact that the construction business registration certificate has been renewed and maintained continuously, and the fact that the tax-related affairs have been continued, it cannot be deemed that the actual conditions of business closure at the time of the tax disposition

Article 66 (Determination and Correction)

Article 104 (Estimated Decision and Revision)

1. Each of the plaintiff's claims is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 2,251,080,60, corporate tax of KRW 1,274,067,340 for the year 2003, corporate tax of KRW 2,332,213,70 for the year 2004, corporate tax of KRW 2,210,537,170 for the year 205 for the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 21, 200, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the non-party educational foundation ○○ Private Teaching Institute (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party educational foundation") to build a new building on three occasions on July 25, 200, and filed a corporate tax for the previous year on March 31, 200 each year from 203 to 206.

B. Upon the Plaintiff’s audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Non-Party Corporation, upon notification of the fact that there was a suspicion that the Plaintiff had omitted a sales report regarding the said building construction work, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation for the business year from April 13, 2006 to August 31, 2006, from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2005, and the Plaintiff was found to have omitted sales of KRW 28,869,34,150 during the said investigation period.

C. On October 1, 2006, the Defendant estimated the amount of income for the above investigation period, corrected the tax base and tax amount of each corporate tax for each of the above investigation period, and subsequently imposed additional corporate tax of KRW 2,251,080,60 for the year 2002, corporate tax of KRW 1,274,067,340 for the year 203, corporate tax of KRW 2,332,213,70 for the year 2004, corporate tax of KRW 2,210,537,170 for the year 2,205, and corporate tax of KRW 8,067,898,80 for the year 205.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 through 4, 3, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 3, 5-1, 6-2, 8, 10, 11-1 through 4, 13, 21 and 25, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) From March 2006, the Plaintiff was in fact in a place of business with five regular workers or less and was in the discontinuance of business from March 2006. Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s small enterprise under Article 104(2)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act was closed, it is deemed that the Defendant’s calculation of the Plaintiff’s income by applying simple expense rate in calculating the income amount pursuant to the method prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, such as the application of Article 104(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and the standard expense rate goes against

(2) Even if the standard expense rate for domestic affairs is applied, it shall be applied within the limit of the amount calculated by multiplying the amount of income under simple expense rate by the multiple rates set by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, pursuant to the proviso of Article 143(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Each of the instant dispositions

(b) Related statutes;

Article 66 (Determination and Correction)

Article 104 (Estimated Decision and Revision)

Article 143 (Estimated Decision and Revision)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The plaintiff registered the construction business on October 23, 1996. The plaintiff extended the registration certificate of the construction business on September 27, 2006 and maintained it until October 16, 2007, but only one construction engineer was held on October 16, 2006, and there was no report on the construction performance in 2006 to the Construction Association, and there was no fact that the value-added tax was reported to the defendant for the second half of 2006 taxable period.

(2) On July 25, 2005, the Plaintiff submitted a commencement report on July 27, 2005 to the non-party corporation with respect to the dormitory operation project contracted with the non-party corporation (the scheduled completion date December 31, 2008) and paid the contract deposit of KRW 2.43,109 million amounting to 20% of the contract deposit around that time. Since then, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a written waiver of the contract that the said construction and lectures were renounced as of March 10, 2006, but did not submit any data on the settlement of the construction price due to the waiver of the construction.

(3) On May 23, 2008, the Plaintiff changed the time construction for the construction site of the non-party corporation to the non-party corporation ○○ Construction (hereinafter referred to as the "○○ Construction"). The ○○ Construction was a library (7 Dongs) of the non-party corporation and the contractor of the research facility (the non-party corporation did not submit a contract for the main office, river, and dormitory Dongs related to each of the dispositions of this case), and the construction business was registered on March 23, 2006. The old ○○ Construction, the safety manager of the above company, was up to April 30, 2006, the quality manager’s ○○ Construction was up to October 30, 2007, and the field agent’s ○○ Construction was up to April 14, 2008.

(4) On April 13, 2006, the representative director of the Plaintiff confirmed that the Defendant did not keep account books and evidential data, such as cash receipt and disbursement books, labor cost ledger, wage payment ledger, construction contract documents, subcontract documents, and on-site disbursement resolution from April 13, 2006 to 2005.

(5) In relation to the instant case, the Plaintiff was convicted of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the Gwangju High Court 2007No116 on October 2, 2007, and the said judgment is currently pending in the final appeal, and the amount of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax evasion recognized in the said judgment is KRW 737,57,984.

(6) On July 10, 2006, when the tax investigation and criminal trial were in progress, the Plaintiff filed a revised tax return on July 10, 2006, and paid KRW 588,366,430 on December 12 of the same month (around the same year, the recognized bonus Gap's tax for the representative director was also reported and voluntarily paid). On September of the same year, the Plaintiff filed a revised tax return on the re-tax and paid the total of KRW 149,211,550 on the 29th of the same month and KRW 149,211,570 on the 20th of the following month ( September 30, 2006), and additionally paid the corporate tax of KRW 737,578,00 in total.

(7) The Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a report on the closure of business as of March 31, 2006, which was closed on July 11, 2008, but there was no change in the entries in the Plaintiff’s corporate register until the date of closing of argument in the instant case. However, there was no change in the entries in the Plaintiff’s corporate register until the date of closing of argument. However, the number of 00, 00 and 00 were appointed as the Plaintiff’s director on March 5, 2008 and

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 4-1 through 5, evidence Nos. 5-1 through 6, evidence Nos. 7-1 through 4, evidence Nos. 8-1 through 11, 12, evidence No. 12-1 through 4, evidence No. 16, evidence Nos. 18-1, 21, 23, evidence Nos. 24-1 through 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) First, according to the above facts, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was convicted of having been convicted of tax evasion amount applying simple expense rate in criminal trial and criminal trial. However, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff did not submit objective data to recognize the waiver of construction work in the first half of 2006 other than the statement of waiver of construction work prepared by himself, changed the time construction work after the first half of 206, reported a closure of construction work as of March 10, 2006, reported the closure of business as of March 31, 2006, and reported the suspension of business as of March 31, 2006. However, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff did not submit objective data to acknowledge the waiver of construction work in the first half of 206, other than the statement of waiver of construction work prepared by himself, changed the time construction work, reported a closure of business closure, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s appointment and renewal of construction business from March 31, 2006 to 206.

Thus, Article 104 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act cannot be applied unless the plaintiff can be found to have actually been in a state of business closure (Article 104 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act cannot be applied (Article 104 (2) 2 of the same Act fails to meet the applicable requirements),

(2) In addition, according to each of the four items of evidence Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16, the notice of standard expense rate and simple expense rate by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service explicitly states the corporation as being exempted from application while notifying the rate under Article 143 (3) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the above rate provision is applied to a corporation tax cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims of the plaintiff in this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.