Gimer Group and one other (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Yellow-hwa et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Grand Korea Leisure Co., Ltd. (Attorney Ba-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office (Law Firm, Attorneys Gangnam-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 7, 2014

1. The plaintiff main body group's action shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax of 3,359,831,075 won for the business year 2007, March 2, 2011; the additional tax of 1,018,60,60,609, and the additional tax of 316,461,866, and the additional tax of 2,338,793,763 won for the second period of 207, 2008, and the additional tax of 467,801,801, for the second period of 2,007, 2005, 290, 290, 201, 206, 363, and 467,80, 201, 206, 205, 201, 206, 294, 201, 206, 2005, 294, 2006, 201.

3. The Plaintiff’s main claim and the remainder of the conjunctive claim are all dismissed for the leisure set-up and the leisure set-up.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff Memer Group and the Defendant is borne by the Plaintiff Memer Group. Of the part arising between Plaintiff Memera and the Defendant, 4/5 of the part arising between Plaintiff Memera’s Leisure Art C&D professional auditor and the Defendant is borne by the Plaintiff Memera, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively. The part arising from the participation by the Defendant is borne by the Intervenor Memera.

The primary purpose of the claim is 8,027,59,530 won (including additional tax 3,359,831,075 won), corporate tax for 208,687,616,840 won (including additional tax 1,018,60,609 won) for 207 business year 207, 301, 360, 3640, 369, 207, 209, 369, 207, 208, 369, 207, 306, 204, 205, 306, 207, 205, 306, 207, 306, 209, 3614, 205, 206, 306, 207, 205, 207, 207, 13638, 394, 20637, 2948

Preliminary claim: The defendant's imposition of corporate tax of 8,027,59,530 (including additional tax of 3,359,831,075), corporate tax of 2,687,616,840 (including additional tax of 1,018,60,609) for the business year of 207, 2007, 360, 3640 (including additional tax of 316,461,8666) for 205, 207, 307, 209, 3694, 207, 369, 207, 209, 306, 207, 309, 207, 209, 3604, 369, 208, 207, 205, 207, 2005, 306, 3638, 294, 20694

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff Logy’s leisure set-up (hereinafter “Plaintiff Logy”) is a casino customer recruitment company with its headquarters in Hong Kong. The Plaintiff Log Group’s Megym Megym Megym Megym Megym Megym.

B. On June 30, 2007, the Plaintiff neglected to enter into a contract on the tickets (Junet A; hereinafter “instant contract”) under which part (70%) of the customer’s casino usage amount (70%) is to be paid as a solicitation fee, instead of recruiting or arranging casino customers to the Intervenor’s Intervenor who operated a casino exclusive for foreigners (hereinafter “the Intervenor”), and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s assistant. The main contents are as follows (the term “rawling fee” used in the instant contract refers to the amount that is paid regardless of the success of the game to attract customers; the term “comp” refers to the provision by a casino operator of board and lodging, transportation services, golf expenses, goods, and other services to customers free of charge in order to attract customers.

Article 2 (Game Operation) (5) of the Table contained in the main text of this Act shall be deposited with an auxiliary participant in the amount equivalent to 30% of the total sum of 1,00 won before the game. In other words, if the Plaintiff Alone deposits 300 won, the auxiliary participant shall be provided with rolling chips equivalent to 1,000 won. The rolling 70% of the total number shall be issued by the Plaintiff Aloneoneone with a credit from the auxiliary participant. Article 3 (Calculation and Payment of Arrangement Fees) ① The calculation of the amount relating to the withholding provision under Chapter 4 of Chapter IV of the Corporate Tax Act of the Republic of Korea and the national list of tax agreements notified by the Ministry of Finance and Economy (in the case of the Philippines, the amount of the Plaintiff's chips shall be calculated by 7% of the total amount of the Plaintiff's chips's chips paid to the Intervenor after the amendment of the above Acts and subordinate statutes of the Republic of Korea.

C. From July 2007 to 2010, the Plaintiff neglected to pay the sum of the subscription fees of KRW 54,479,738,96 ( KRW 29,846,742,00 from July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007: KRW 29,846,742,000: KRW 10,837,259,000 for the business year of 2008: KRW 4,745,374,996, KRW 2010 for the business year of 2009: KRW 4,745,374,996, and KRW 9,050,363,00 for the business year of 2010), but did not report and pay taxes.

D. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, from December 17, 2010 to February 28, 2011, conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff neglected, deeming that the Plaintiff opened an office on three floors of the building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address omitted), Seoul (hereinafter “instant office”) where the Intervenor was the assistant intervenor’s place of business to be engaged in activities, such as solicitation of casino users, game support, and joint settlement of game expenses, and determined that the office was a domestic permanent establishment of the Plaintiff neglected, and notified the Defendant of the amount (which divided by 1.1), 49,527,035,450 won (which included the recruitment fees divided by 1.1), excluding value-added tax, from the recruitment fees received from the assistant intervenor: 207,13,130,181,81,81, 2008, 207, 20636, 207, 207, 20636, 207: 207: 7, 29636

E. On March 2, 201, the defendant stated 207 corporate tax of 8,027,59,530 (including additional tax of 3,359,831,075), corporate tax of 2,687,618,600,609 (including additional tax of 1,018,60,609), corporate tax of 948,374,540 (including additional tax of 316,461,866) for 207, 2010, 307, 207, 207, 209, 307, 207, 209, 306, 207, 306, 207, 207, 309, 207, 207, 309, 207, 207, 207, 208, 306, 3637, 3946, 7

F. On June 1, 2011, Plaintiff Alone filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on June 1, 201. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service, from July 28, 2012 to December 2010, 49,527,035,450 won (from July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, KRW 27,13,401,818, KRW 9,852,053,63,07, KRW 313,97, KRW 269, KRW 208, KRW 207, KRW 207, KRW 207, KRW 207, KRW 27, and KRW 27,50, KRW 27,207, KRW 207, was notified of the initial tax base and amount of tax related to the Plaintiff’s activities and re-audit the amount of tax to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The other party to each of the dispositions of this case is neglected by the plaintiff, and the defendant does not have any disposition against the plaintiff Memeral group. Thus, the lawsuit by the plaintiff Meal Group is unlawful.

B. Determination

In light of the above facts, since each of the dispositions of this case was made against the plaintiff Mangy, the plaintiff Mangy Group did not have the standing to sue to seek revocation of each of the dispositions of this case. Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiff Mangy Group is unlawful.

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) the first argument;

In the instant tax notice, the trade name (name) and (i) the taxpayer is indicated as “non-party 1 at the domestic permanent establishment of the Timei Group,” and the instant tax notice alone cannot at all identify whether each of the instant tax dispositions was imposed on Plaintiff 1, and instead, the trade name (name) includes “Jimei Group,” and thus, Plaintiff Mega Group is understood as being liable for tax payment. Nonparty 1 concurrently serves as the representative of Plaintiff Megara and Plaintiff Mega Group, and Nonparty 1 is indicated in the trade name (name) column of the instant tax notice, the taxpayer cannot be identified solely on the ground that Nonparty 1 is indicated in the trade name (name) column of the instant tax notice. In the course of the tax investigation on Plaintiff Megaei, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Intervenor and the party who entered into the instant contract with the supplementary intervenor was neglected, and thus, the instant tax notice constitutes a case where the identity of the taxpayer can not be identified. Accordingly, each of the instant tax notice constitutes unlawful and void.

(ii) the second argument;

In order for a permanent establishment to exist in the Republic of Korea, there is a fixed place of business in the Republic of Korea, and there is an essential and important business activity through a fixed place of business. However, the office of this case is limited to a temporary provision by the supplementary intervenor to all regular casino business operators, including the plaintiff, using an extra space of casino business place, and there is no limit on the right to use the office of this case. ② The assistant office of this case was recruited by the plaintiff 2 directly or through many subordinate hotel business operators other than China, including China, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Hong Kong. The assistant office of this case was not provided to the plaintiff 2, and it was provided to the plaintiff 2. The assistant office of this case by the 0th anniversary of the fact that the assistant office of this case was not provided to the plaintiff 2. The assistant office of this case by the 0th anniversary of the time when the plaintiff 2 was provided to the plaintiff 2, who was allowed to visit the casino operated by the supplementary intervenor, and it was provided to the plaintiff 2's assistant office of this case.

(iii) the third assertion;

Even if the office of this case falls under the domestic permanent establishment of Plaintiff Alone, pursuant to Article 7 of the Convention between the Republic of Korea and the Republic of the Philippines for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income (hereinafter “the Tax Treaty”), the office of this case can be imposed as business income only on the profit accrued to the office of this case, and all expenses incurred for the purpose of the office of this case shall be deducted without relation to the place where the occurrence occurred. However, the defendant considered that the collection fees received from the supplementary participant was the income amount belonging to the office of this case. However, it is merely merely that the business performed by the office of this case provided various convenience to the customer recruited outside of Korea, and it is not permissible to allow the principal business activities conducted outside of Korea had absolute influence on the creation of income ( recruitment fees). In addition, since the part of the amount received by the supplementary participant of this case, which was paid to the customer for the purpose of this case is reverted to the customer, the amount of value-added tax should be excluded from the income amount or should be recognized as losses.

4) The fourth argument

Among each of the dispositions in this case, the penalty tax is illegal since not only the type of penalty tax is different in a tax payment notice, but also the grounds for calculation are not specified.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff neglectedly indicated himself as “JI-MIII”, “JI-MI”, “JI-MI”, “JI-MI”, and “JI-MI-MI” by preparing a receipt, withdrawal certificate, credit card, and certificate of confirmation to the supplementary intervenor. The supplementary intervenor stated the supplementary intervenor as “JIEI”, “JI-MI”, and “JI-MI”, while preparing a settlement statement, balance certificate (Evidence No. 9) at the Plaintiff Alone, the supplementary intervenor stated the supplementary intervenor’s statement as “JI”, “JI-MII”, and “the supplementary intervenor’s internal document prepared by the supplementary intervenor, such as a copy of the supplementary intervenor’s entertainment, negotiations on the instant contract, etc., also indicated the Plaintiff Alone as “branch director,” “I-MI-MI”, “LI-MI”, and “the supplementary intervenor’s internal document prepared by the supplementary intervenor under Article 25(5) of the instant contract.

2) The Defendant registered the name on December 20, 201 as “Jimei Group Domestic Permanent Establishment,” “Jimei business opening date, July 1, 2007,” and the place of business as the instant office [this date: the date of ex officio closure of business on April 11, 201 (the date of business closure: December 31, 201)] on the ground that the Defendant had not registered its business even though the Plaintiff was engaged in business with a permanent establishment in Korea.

3) On June 1, 201, Plaintiff neglected to comply with each of the instant dispositions, filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on June 1, 201, and filed a supplementary statement with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the office of this case is “a company affiliated with the Republic of Korea of Domeri, Hong Kong,” and that, even if not, the office of this case is not a domestic permanent establishment, the income belonging thereto is extremely minor, and that, even if not, the amount of money received from the supplementary intervenor, among which the supplementary intervenor received, should be excluded from income or recognized as losses, and should be excluded from value-added tax base.

4) From January 2007 to September 2008, the auxiliary participant company served as the leader of the new market development team from January 2007 to September 2008, and thereafter, Nonparty 3, who served as the head of the marketing headquarters international marketing team, was investigated by the Seoul regional tax office on January 4, 201, stated as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 문 : 귀하는 지메이(Jimei)와 계약에 관여한 사실이 있지요? 계약 당시 계약서에 사인은 누가 하였습니까? 답 : 예. 계약 당시 계약서에 보조참가인은 대표이사인 소외 4과 본인이 연서로 사인을 하였고, 지메이사는 그룹 회장 소외 1과 그룹 담당 변호사가 사인을 했습니다. 문 : 지메이 본사는 어디이며, 본사가 아닌 지메이 필리핀 계열사인 필리핀 소재 원고 홀리데이와 계약한 이유는 무엇입니까? 답 : 지메이 본사는 홍콩으로 알고 있으며, 세금을 조금이라도 줄이고자 조세협약이 체결된 필리핀 소재 계열사 원고 홀리데이와 계약을 체결한 것으로 알고 있습니다. 문 : 지메이사와 보조참가인의 역할은 어떻게 구분됩니까? 답 : 지메이사는 중국 등지에서 고객을 모집하여 보조참가인에게 송객하는 역할을 담당하고, 보조참가인은 해당 고객들이 게임을 할 수 있는 공간과 인력(딜러)을 제공하고 있습니다. 문 : 지메이사의 독자적인 게임운영 형태에 대하여 구체적으로 말씀해 주시겠습니까? 답 : 지메이사 본사에서 중국 등지에서 모집한 고객들의 돈을 입금받으면 보조참가인에 파견된 지메이 현장경리팀에서 고객들에게 정켓칩을 제공하였고, 매일 지메이 현장경리팀과 보조참가인 현장경리팀이 일일정산해 왔습니다. 문 : 보조참가인과 지메이의 수수료 정산은 어떻게 이루어집니까? 답 : 매달 말일에 지메이에서 모든 칩스를 보조참가인 현장경리팀에 전달해 오면 정산을 끝낸 후 30%의 보조참가인 지분을 받고 나머지는 지메이 현장경리에게 돌려주고 있습니다. 문 : 그럼 지메이 현장경리는 주로 어떤 임무를 하였습니까? 답 : 고객이 오면 본사에 입금한 금액을 확인하고 고객에게 칩스를 전달해 주고 고객에 롤링을 해 주는 역할을 하고 있습니다. 문 : 지메이사 한국 내 사무실에 근무하는 인원은 평균 몇 명이며, 근무방법은 어떻게 됩니까? 답 : 지메이 직원은 지메이 본사에서 파견된 직원과 한국 내에서 채용한 직원으로 약 15명이 1일 3교대로 근무하고 있는 것으로 보입니다. 문 : 지메이 직원 중 소외 5이라는 분을 아시죠? 소외 5은 주로 어떤 일을 하였습니까? 답 : 예. 소외 5은 사실상 지메이 한국사무실 실질책임자로 보이며, 고객접대, 게임(롤링) 운영, 수수료 정산 및 본사와의 업무지시 등을 집행해 왔습니다. 문 : 지메이 직원인 소외 5은 언제부터 근무하였으며, 현재는 누가 그 일을 수행하고 있습니까? 답 : 제가 알기로는 2007. 6. 보조참기안과 계약 이후 첫 롤링(정켓)게임을 시작하는 때부터 지메이 본사에서 한국으로 파견된 직원이며, 2009. 12. 말에 그만두고, 그 이후 현재까지 소외 6라는 사람이 그 일을 대신해 오고 있는 것으로 알고 있습니다. 문 : 보조참가인은 지메이 그룹에 무상으로 사무실을 빌려준 사실이 있지요? 그 이유는 무엇입니까? 답 : 예. 사무실을 무상으로 사용하게 한 이유는 우선 보조참가인의 사무실 전체가 임대 약정으로 사용하고 있어 재임대가 곤란하고, 마카오 등 카지노 업계가 일반적으로 무상으로 사용하고 있으며, 지메이 그룹이 마카오 내 카지노 업계에서 2위의 지위에 있고, 보조참가인 입장에서도 고객을 최대한 유치하여야 하는 등 편의 제공 차원에서 무상으로 제공한 것으로 알고 있습니다.

5) On June 16, 2008, Nonparty 5, who was an employee of the Plaintiff Oralone, expressed the contracting party as “Biat,” while making a statement concerning the content of the instant contract concluded between the Plaintiff Oralone and the Intervenor at the time of the investigation conducted by the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office.

6) From July 2007, 2007, 15 employees of the Plaintiff Mangyle were working for 3 teaching places per day (average 4 to 5 teaching places per day).

7) At the time of the tax investigation, the instant office had seven books, seven computer units, one credit cooperative for cash storage, one credit cooperative for chips for chips, three cashnets, three attendance cards, one attendance card size, etc. In addition, at the instant office, the Plaintiff alone prepared and managed the individual customer’s game settlement card on a date, stating the customer’s name, chip amount, chip par amount, chip chip Dwin, balance, signature, and loan details.

8) On January 3, 2011, in order to determine the tax base and amount of corporate tax by January 17, 201, Plaintiff neglected to submit a request from the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office to prepare and submit a detailed statement of expenses incurred in relation to related cost, etc. However, on February 9, 2011, he/she again requested the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office to submit a related cost and expenses incurred in relation to the relevant cost until February 14, 2011, but did not submit a request. Thereafter, during the re-investigation process, Plaintiff Alone filed an application for suspension of tax investigation on several occasions on the grounds that the submission of the above data takes considerable time for collecting and submitting overseas data by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, and did not submit any such data.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images of evidence Nos. 2, Eul's evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) As to the first argument

A) In imposing a tax by a tax payment notice, the taxpayer’s indication must be objectively determined in accordance with the formal description of the tax payment notice, and if the taxpayer’s indication in the tax payment notice is not clear enough to identify the taxpayer’s identity, the service by the tax payment notice shall not have the effect as a lawful tax payment notice (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6632, Jan. 28, 2010).

B) We examine the case. ① The supplementary intervenor indicated himself as meri in relation to the contract of this case as the relation with the supplementary intervenor, and the supplementary intervenor also indicated the plaintiff's name as Memeri as Memeri; ② The supplementary intervenor's employee at the time of investigation at Seoul Regional Tax Office stated that the supplementary intervenor at the time of investigation was not the supplementary intervenor group but the supplementary intervenor at the time of the conclusion of the contract of this case, but the supplementary intervenor at the time of the execution of the contract of this case, the supplementary intervenor was not the supplementary intervenor at the time of the execution of the contract of this case, and the plaintiff's name as the supplementary intervenor at the time of the execution of the contract of this case, which was the party to the contract of this case. The supplementary intervenor's name at the time of the execution of the contract of this case was well known that the supplementary intervenor was the party to the contract of this case, and the non-party 5, who was its employee, was the party to the contract of this case at the Central District Prosecutors' Office, and thus, the defendant did not know the name of this case.

2) As to the second argument

A) The former part of Article 7(1) of the Tax Treaty provides that “The profit of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxed only in that other Contracting State unless the enterprise runs a business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment located in the other Contracting State,” and Article 5(1) provides that “a permanent establishment for the purpose of this Convention refers to a fixed place of business in which the business of the enterprise is operated entirely or partially.” Meanwhile, Article 9(3)(b) of the Tax Treaty provides that “a service, including the advisory service provided by the enterprise through an employee or any other employee, shall be a permanent establishment only if such activity continues for a period exceeding 183 days in the territory of a Contracting State, in total.” Article 7(4) provides that “a permanent establishment shall not be deemed to include:

In light of the language, purport, etc. of the above provisions, in order to establish a permanent establishment in the Republic of Korea, an employee of, or a person under instructions from, the Philippines corporation should perform essential and important business activities, other than preliminary or auxiliary business activities, through a “fixed place of business” such as a domestic building, facility, or equipment, etc., for which the Switzerland corporation has “right to dispose of or right to use.” Whether business activities are essential and important should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the nature and scale of the business activities, the importance and role of the entire business activities, etc.

B) The following circumstances revealed in light of the aforementioned factual basis: ① the Intervenor has been allowed to use the instant office free of charge by the Plaintiff Maury; ② The Plaintiff Maury held the right to use the instant office; ② Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff Maury received 70% of the sales revenue from the Intervenor’s casino recruited by the customer as a solicitation fee after the settlement with the Intervenor 209, as well as the Plaintiff Maury’s overseas recruitment of customers, and the Plaintiff 20% of the sales revenue from the Defendant 1’s office’s office and exchange (chip exchange) with the Defendant 200 business activities, including hotel, casino, airport, guide, etc., were not ancillary or auxiliary to the Plaintiff Mauryy’s business activities; ③ Plaintiff 20 years from the date of exchange with the Plaintiff 1’s office and 20 years from the date of exchange with the Plaintiff Mauryyyy’s office and 20 years from the date of exchange with the Plaintiff 20th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s office’s office.

3) As to the third argument

A) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of corporate tax, the burden of proving the tax base, which is the basis of taxation, is the tax authority, and the tax base is the basis of deducting necessary expenses from revenue, so that the tax authority has the burden of proving the amount of income, necessary expenses, and expenses to be included in deductible expenses, or the amount of necessary expenses or expenses to the taxpayer is favorable to the taxpayer, and most of the facts that generated them are located in the area under the control of the taxpayer, and thus the burden of proving the non-existence of the necessary expenses or expenses must be presumed. In light of the fact that the taxpayer is easy to prove it, it is reasonable to recognize the necessity of proof to the taxpayer by allowing the presumption

However, the Plaintiff, while holding that all expenses incurred for the purpose of the instant office pursuant to Article 7 of the Tax Treaty should be deducted without relation to the place of occurrence. Each disposition of the instant case, which was rendered by the Intervenor, as income amount attributed to the instant office, is unlawful because business activities conducted overseas had absolute influence on income creation. Of the amount paid by the Intervenor, the part of the roller which was paid to the customer under the name of the customer’s expansion belongs to the customer and should be excluded from the income amount or recognized as losses. However, the Plaintiff did not prove all the expenses incurred for the purpose of the instant office and the part of the roller out of the amount paid by the Intervenor from the Intervenor.

B) Meanwhile, the phrase “a discount amount that is not included in the tax base under the Value-Added Tax Act” means a discount amount for the value of supply after the supply of goods or services, and it does not constitute “a discount amount where the outstanding amount of the proceeds from supply for credit sales is paid or the outstanding amount of the proceeds from supply is received before the agreed date.” Thus, Article 13(2)6 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013); Article 52(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23595, Feb. 2, 2012).

C) Therefore, the above assertion by the Plaintiff Alone is without merit.

4) As to the fourth argument

A) When the principal tax and the additional tax are to be imposed along with a single tax payment notice, the individual tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof should be stated in the tax payment notice separately. In a case where multiple kinds of additional tax are to be imposed, it is clear that the taxpayer can per se know the details of each tax disposition by classifying the amount and the basis for calculation thereof. As such, the imposition of additional tax is not unlawful in a case where the taxpayer merely states the total amount of additional tax without disclosing the type and the basis for calculation of the amount, etc. on the ground that the imposition of additional tax is a disposition imposing the tax. However, even if there is any defect in the matters required by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in a tax payment notice, if it is evident that the taxpayer has already entered all necessary matters in the notice, etc. sent to the taxpayer prior to the taxation disposition, and it is evident that the defect of the tax payment notice can be corrected or cured (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012).

B) In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement of evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that only the amount of additional tax is written in the instant tax payment notice, and that the basis for calculation of additional tax is not specified. As such, the tax payment notice of additional tax among each of the dispositions in the instant case does not contain any defects such as omitting the matters required by the relevant laws and regulations, and there is no reason to deem that the defect was supplemented or cured. Accordingly, the part of additional tax in each

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, among each of the dispositions in this case rendered by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on March 2, 2011, the penalty tax of 3,359,831,075 won for the business year 2007, the penalty tax of 1,018,60,60,609 won for the business year 2008, the penalty tax of 316,461,866 won for the business year 209, and the penalty tax of 2,338,793,763 won for the second period of 2,07, 2007, the penalty tax of 467,801,831 won for the second period of 2,08, the penalty tax of 2,008, the penalty tax of 2,005, 2,010, 2,361, 2, 206, 201, 36, 206, 2016, 306, 4, 201.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and it is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Ba-hee (Presiding Judge)