Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-73764 ( October 15, 2018)

Cho-2016-west-1530 (2016.04)

It is illegal that the market price is calculated by the average value added ratio by type of business.

In relation to the transaction supplied by the Plaintiff Company to the Plaintiff Company as its representative, the market price was calculated using the average value added rate for the clothing manufacturing industry, but there is a limit to calculating the average value added rate for the clothing manufacturing industry.

Article 52 (Dispudiation of Wrongful Calculation)

2018Nu5478 Revocation of imposition, etc. of global income tax

Kim AA et al.

○ Head of tax office and 5

November 29, 2018

January 31, 2019

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant ○○ Tax Office are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal between Plaintiff KimA and Defendant ○○○ Head, ○○ Head, ○○ Head, and ○○ Head shall be borne by the said Plaintiff. The costs of appeal between Plaintiff BB and Defendant ○○ Head are borne by the said Defendant. The costs of appeal between Plaintiff BB and Defendant ○ Head, ○○ Head, and ○○ Head, are borne by the said Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

A. Plaintiff KimA

Defendant ○○○ Head of the tax office, ○○ Head of the tax office, and ○○ Head of the tax office shall revoke the imposition of each global income tax and value-added tax (including the additional tax) listed in the attached table 1 through 3 against Plaintiff KimA.

B. Plaintiff BBB

The imposition of each corporate tax and value-added tax (including additional tax) listed in attached Table 1 Nos. 4 through 9 by the head of ○○ Tax Office, the head of ○○ Tax Office, and the head of ○○ Tax Office on the Plaintiff BB (hereinafter “Plaintiff BB”) shall be revoked. The notice of each change in income in attached Table 3, which the head of ○○ Tax Office rendered against Plaintiff BB on August 17, 2015, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. Plaintiff KimA

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning the above plaintiff shall be revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition by the above plaintiff.

B. Plaintiff BB

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part relating to the above plaintiff, defendant ○○ Head of the tax office, ○○ Head of the tax office, and ○○ Head of the tax office shall be revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition by the above

C. Defendant ○○ Head of Tax Office

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the defendant ○○ Tax Office is revoked. The plaintiff BB's claim against the above defendant is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows, and this part of this Court’s judgment is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, so it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

For the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the "after re-calculated the value of the clothing supplied at an appropriate market price" of 5, 8, and 9 pages shall be as follows:

"after the sum of the value of the clothing to be attached and supplied shall be calculated by applying the formula of "purchase amount" ¡À (1-average value added rate by type of business) by treating the sum of "the cost of raw and secondary materials, the cost of critical processing, and other processing costs as purchase amount."

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

A. Plaintiffs’ assertion, Defendants’ assertion, and relevant statutes

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that stated in the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases:

· 6 pages 6 to 7 pages 7 are as follows.

The instant place of business is supplied with raw and secondary materials by the original materials processing company, and the goods are directly supplied by the clothing processing company, and there is no type A and B transaction in the form that the Plaintiff company supplied the clothing from the clinical processing company and then supplied it again to each of the instant places of business. The building (Seoul Dongdaemun-gu CCC 00; hereinafter referred to as the "K building") being the location of the headquarters of the Plaintiff company is the warehouse of the "DD's personal place of business operated before the establishment of the Plaintiff company," and all of the instant goods were used for the "D's main office" as the grounds for the Defendants' Disposition No. A and B transaction were conducted on the computerized data of this case, and there was no "the main office of the Plaintiff company" or "the main office of the Plaintiff company's employees stated in the "B" or "the above D's main office of the Plaintiff company" (the main office of the Plaintiff company was located) but no one of the above D'D's main office of the Plaintiff company's temporary storage of the goods of this case.

· 11. The following shall be added to the 11th line:

The calculation of the sales cost based on the computerized data of this case, which is the taxation data falling under the "Iaaa" account book or other evidentiary documents", cannot be deemed as the "presumptive investigation" method, and there is no illegality in partial estimation or mixed taxation as alleged by the plaintiffs.

B. Whether there was a transaction A or B (the judgment as to the claim of this case)

According to the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the "D's main company" exists in a personal business place distinct from the Plaintiff Company (the head office), as alleged by the Plaintiffs, among the individual business place, which is distinguishable from the Plaintiff Company (the head office); it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff Company (the head office) purchased raw materials from the original materials company and supplied them to the clinical Processing Company for processing; and that the said materials that were completed by requesting the processing company to the production company were supplied to the production company at each business place of this case. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff Company (the head office) had no grounds for the Plaintiffs' chapter 1 of this case on different premise.

1) The Plaintiffs asserted that there exists a “D’s main office among the personal businesses of Plaintiff KimA, which are distinguished from the Plaintiff Company (the head office) in this court. However, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs, it cannot be deemed that there exists a “D’ head office separate from the head office of the Plaintiff Company.”

① Employees claiming that the Plaintiffs are the employees of the “D head office” other than the Plaintiff Company (head office) also prepared a labor contract in the same form as the employees of the Plaintiff Company (head office) stating the same working conditions and the same affiliation (in particular, the name of the labor contract is referred to as “D,” “BB annual salary contract,” and as in the case of the employees of the Plaintiff Company (head office), its affiliated employees are referred to as “principal office,” as in the case of the employees of the Plaintiff Company (head office). Considering the financial transaction details of the above employees, not only Plaintiff KimA but also Plaintiff KimA was paid wages or retirement allowances from the Plaintiff Company (head office). In addition, the said employees seem to have worked at the office or the office of the Plaintiff Company located in the same building as the head office of the Plaintiff Company (K building). In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to deem that there was an employee of “D head office,” separate from the head office of the Plaintiff

② Each representative of a pre-processed company and a secondary materials company, which appears to have been traded with the Plaintiffs, are only traded with the Plaintiffs, and there was no means to conduct any transaction with the Plaintiff Company. However, only the written confirmation alone, it is not readily concluded that the said company does not have any transaction with the Plaintiff Company that the said company works as a representative of an intra-company director. In addition, in the case of a partial confirmation (Articles. 19-3 and 4), it is merely written by the Plaintiff KimA, not the representative of each of the said companies.

Furthermore, while the representatives of original and original materials companies traded with DD from A's confirmation document (No. 65 No. 1 to No. 65), they received the payment of the price of the original and original materials from the corporate head of the Plaintiff company rather than the D's transaction party to the transaction, and the tax invoice is also issued by the Plaintiff company as the addressee.

③ According to the IT computer program used by the plaintiffs, the store code (000) of the "main company" (00) is separately set from the store code (001) of "D", and there is no store code that can refer to the plaintiff company (the head office) other than the above "main company", and the address of the above "main company" is K building (the underground first floor). In addition, it appears that the monthly use fee of the above ITC computer program was paid by the plaintiff company during the taxable period of this case. Therefore, the "main company" in the above ITC computer program appears to mean the head office of the plaintiff company.

④ Furthermore, as seen below, the employees working for the Plaintiff KimA and the Plaintiff’s head office or each of the instant places of business are only stated in relation to the role of the Plaintiff’s head office and the method of transactions in accordance with the audit conducted by the Defendant ○○○ Head Office, and they did not make a statement on the premise that there exists “D” head office of the Plaintiff’s head office in the individual place of business separately from D.

2) The head office of thisCC and the head office of the Plaintiff, which are expected to serve in the Plaintiff KimA and the Plaintiff Company, stated to the following purport: (a) the clothes sales office bD of the Plaintiff’s individual workplace D; and (b) the KimU, an employee of the clothing sales office of the corporate workplace and the main office of the workplace; and (c)

m. The statement of the plaintiff KimU

○○ The clothing manufactured in the BBB shall be supplied in D, WW, and private business place D, WW operated by the BB branch and business place of the BB branch in order to sell all products. In the case of BB, BB branch and D, WW, 100% of the purchase of the clothing manufactured by the BB head office of the BBB office in the LW, and sold to wholesalers and general consumers.

○○ The clothing manufactured in the BBB shall be supplied in D, WW, and private business place D, WW operated by the BB branch and business place of the BB branch in order to sell all products. In the case of BB, BB branch and D, WW, 100% of the purchase of the clothing manufactured by the BB head office of the BBB office in the LW, and sold to wholesalers and general consumers.

When ○○ receives a report on the production work order prepared by a designer at the time of its meetings with a designer and a sub-materials, the designer will send the order by facsimile to a subsidiary material company. Once approved, the designer will send the order by facsimile. If the designer will prepare a written order and prepare a disbursement resolution and then have the author, the entire disbursement decision amount shall be paid to the director of the width or the vice-director in cash. If the designer visits the original body and sub-materials company and pays the price in advance, the subsidiary material will bring the goods to the head office on the day.

Of the computerized data of this case, the head office entry file has been input and managed by thisCC Vice-head, and ITC program 2008

Since the year, it has been used. In addition, it is prepared a sale daily and a transaction statement for each corporate workplace and individual workplace. It is submitted as the headquarters of the Plaintiff Company every day, and it is reversed while keeping it in turcing.

In the process of the process that the volume of the BB head office in the ○ processing factory to the BB head office is transferred to each branch office, and the sales amount is 65-70 for the production cost and 25% for the production cost in 2011-2013 and the sales cost is 5% for the production cost.

m. Statement of thisCC

○ The main responsibility was to deliver goods stored as the head office in a bonded processing factory to a branch store after receipt of the goods.

○ When ordering original parts and subsidiary materials from a design room to a business entity using original parts, the original parts shall arrive at the head office. The person in charge shall be the owner.

The examination shall be conducted as to when the goods have been produced at any time and as soon as the goods have been produced. The examination shall be conducted to determine when the raw and secondary materials arrive and, when they have been inspected, to bring the original body, etc. to the president of the forest processing company. The examination shall also be conducted to encourage the forest processing company to make the goods manufactured at any time and as soon as possible. The goods shall arrive at the head office when the goods have been completed. The goods shall be transported to BBBB branch business place and DD sales stores, after which the goods shall be transported to BBB branch and D.

○○ If the first female is produced in the BB Design Office, the company will prepare and provide a production work instruction for the processing company. The processing company will find the raw materials at the BB head office in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and will receive a production work instruction in the design room, and will explain the details of the production work instruction in the design room to the processing company in detail. Thereafter, the company will request the re-repair of the goods if they are well sold. Since the previous production work instruction has already been provided, the company will not prepare a new production work instruction, but enter them in the strip and manage the current production status of the processing factory.

○ Of the computerized data of this case, the computerized files were sent to the head office from 2011 to 2013, and the computer files were the data showing the details of the clothing, which were entered into BB branch offices and DD, WW, etc. during the said period, and contain the date of shipment, the storage store, the shipment quantity by individual product, the storage price, etc.

○ 전산자료에 따르면, 2013년에는 본사에 보관되어 있는 107,464개의 의류 중 DD 매장으로 42,878개, 동대문 매장으로 30,586개, QQQ 매장으로 7,437개, ZZZ 매장으로 20,325개, 대치점 매장으로 2,558개, PPP 매장으로 3,679개가 출고되었다.

/ Statement of ParkD

○ From April 2009, D stores are in charge of the business of selling clothings to customers from D stores.

○ The goods are supplied at the head office as a goods distribution manager, and the quantity of the goods stored at DD stores as the shipment site after being issued a shipment site along with the goods. The sales proceeds are received from consumers and wholesalers in cash, card or account, and the daily sales proceeds are entered in ITC computer program and sales log. The sales proceeds settled daily shall be paid to the president or the head of NCC. The daily sales proceeds are paid to the head office or the head of NCC. The daily settlement of sales proceeds is accompanied by a receipt for sales days and transaction specifications, food expenses spent in DD, transportation expenses, etc.

○ The daily settlement of sales records shall be made after the daily settlement of sales records, and the same contents shall be entered into the ITC computer program.

c. In the case of D same branch stores, the branch officer (man) shall enter daily sales records into ITC computer programs. The inventory records are available only for perusal, and the daily sales records of the branch stores were entered into the agency’s input authority. The cost of store operation, such as food, transportation, and repair cost, exceeds 10,000 won per day, which is also entered into the computer.

【Statement of KimE

○ from 2010 to 8, 2014, the Bank of Korea has served as the BBB East capital branch.

○ Goods have been held by thisCC as a logistics manager at the head office. Goods held by thisCC as a vice head.

B. The KimU also has the ex-factory as well as the ex-factory. The KimU maintains the quantity that the goods have been properly stored after receiving the ex-factory. In most cases, the sales proceeds are received from wholesalers in cash or account, and the daily sales proceeds are entered in ITC Computer Programs and the daily sales log. The KimU collects the sales proceeds settled daily and pays them to the president, NCC, or the vice-head, who is the next day of sale. When settling the daily sales proceeds, receipts are also given to the sales daily sales revenue and the sales revenue statement, the sales revenue statement, the sales revenue statement, and the transportation expenses.

○ The daily daily daily sales report shall be prepared after the daily sales records are settled, and the same contents shall be prepared in the ITC computer program.

The inventory status was also entered into the ITC computer program.

The daily sales was compiled in the sales day of ○, and it was entered into the ITC computer program. The two are the same.

I would like to be a part of the work.

In each of the above statements of the plaintiff KimA et al., "the main company" is used as a concept clearly distinguishable from "D" or "D store", and according to the purport of each of the above statements, it is inevitable to see that "the main office of the plaintiff company is "D". Meanwhile, according to each of the above statements, the plaintiff's design office ordered raw materials from the design office of the plaintiff company to the main office of the plaintiff company and received raw materials from the plaintiff KimA with payment approved, and then examined them. After that, when the processing company takes raw materials as the main office of the plaintiff company, it issued a detailed work order at the design office of the plaintiff company and supplied them to the plaintiff company as the main office of the plaintiff company, it appears that the company supplied them to each of the main offices of the plaintiff company as the main office of the plaintiff company. Further, each of the above workplaces appears to have served as the supply quantity and condition after being supplied with raw materials from the plaintiff's main office of the plaintiff company's main office, and it appears to have been completed by the supply company's main office of each of the plaintiff company.

3) Among the computerized data stored in ITC computer programs, the data of this case stated that "the main office is located in the column of the factory establishment" as "the main office is located in the column of the factory establishment," and the product details released from each business establishment of this case are written in detail by the date. While the plaintiffs asserted that the ITC computer program was operated as "the main office," it was only possible to enter only the contents related to the DNA store among the ITC computer programs.

4) Examining the list of purchase and sales tax invoices submitted by the Plaintiff Company (the head office) at the time of filing a preliminary return of value-added tax for the second period from the first period to the second period from 2011 in 2013, the Plaintiff Company appears to have received from the original and secondary materials companies during the pertinent taxable period the supply (purchase) of goods, such as clothes, etc. in a considerable amount of money, from the original and secondary materials, and from the original and secondary materials companies, and from each of the instant workplaces. In addition, from among the corporate establishments, the same capital store reported the purchase transaction with the head office and the head office of the Plaintiff Company at KRW 00,000,000, when filing the preliminary return of value-added tax for the first period from 2012. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that there was no clothing supply transaction between the Plaintiff Company and the head office and each of the instant workplaces is difficult to obtain.

5) In addition, even though each of the instant workplaces directly traded with a processing company, the Plaintiffs did not submit objective data to prove that each of the instant workplaces was issued a tax invoice by a processing company and reported details, etc. Meanwhile, since the details of each of the financial transactions, etc. submitted by the Plaintiffs are mixed with the details of wages, retirement allowances, etc. deposited in the individual account, etc. of each of their employees as well as the Plaintiff KimA, it is insufficient to recognize that a direct transaction had occurred between the processing company and each of the instant workplaces.

C. Whether the calculation of the omitted amount in connection with B transaction is lawful (2), (3), and (4)

(1) In calculating the omitted amount of sales, whether there are overlapping goods released (in this case, relating to the principal)

In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone contains overlapping goods such as carry-over goods and second-out goods from 2011 to 2013 among the computerized data of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion of this case 2 is without merit.

A) Of the computerized data of this case that the Defendants used as the evidentiary material for calculating the omission amount in sales related to B transaction, there is no indication that there was a carry-over product or a second-out product in the file for each business year from 2011 to 2013.

B) From among personal businesses, Park Don, a staff member of Don's clothes sales employee, stated that "D's Don's Don's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol

C) Furthermore, the plaintiffs asserted that the computerized data of this case were released from 2011 to 2013 and the file is different from the data held by the plaintiffs. The commodities actually released can be distinguished from the "store entry" and "transaction entry" according to the "entry Classification". In the case of "store entry", the "carryover entry" means the carry-over and re-delivery goods that were not sold at each place of business of this case. However, it is difficult to distinguish the processed data of this case from the processed data of this case from the processed data of this case that they were stored and stored in each place of business as much as possible and stored in each place of business. However, it is difficult to distinguish the carried-over or re-delivery goods from the processed data of this case from the processed data of this case from the processed data of this case, because they were not submitted objective data to prove which goods overlap with the released goods.

2) Whether there is illegality, etc. in the partial estimate (3)

A) Relevant legal principles

It is not a taxation method recognized by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Corporate Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du9193, Dec. 24, 2001). In determining or revising the tax base and amount of corporate tax or value-added tax on the basis of account books and other evidentiary documents, the method of estimating is exceptionally permissible in cases where a taxpayer cannot determine the tax base and amount of tax even based on the data submitted by him/her, or where a taxpayer cannot obtain the data for the on-site investigation by any other means. Meanwhile, the method of estimating assessment is exceptionally permitted in cases where there is no taxpayer’s account books and evidentiary documents that form the basis for the determination of the tax base and amount of tax, or where it is difficult to use them by the method of taxation based on the basis of the basis of the estimation because it is difficult to conduct a on-site investigation. Even if the portion of the account books and evidentiary documents kept by him/her contains false information, the remaining portion should be determined based on the basis of the facts.

B) Whether a part of the estimation is estimated

In addition to the above mentioned facts in Gap evidence 32, Eul evidence 16, and Eul evidence 20 and the purport of the whole oral argument, the electronic data of this case secured by the defendants at the time of tax investigation shall contain specific descriptions of the plaintiff company's sales and entry, sales details of each place of business of this case, etc. Of computerized data of this case, the defendants shall have the unit price stated in the cost account statement (Evidence 16) for the goods (89% out of all the unit price code of this case) where there is a cost account statement for each business year among the electronic data of this case. The defendants shall not have the duty to calculate the unit price for the goods (O = 1 + other processing costs + ④ development costs (+ 10% of the unit price of the total goods) calculated on the basis of the cost account statement that there is no other risk of calculating the unit price of the goods at least 5% of the unit price of the production cost per unit of this case's calculation based on the average sales cost per unit of 10% of the total goods. Meanwhile, the defendants calculated on the basis of the cost account statement.

C) Whether the computation of sales is legitimate

The Defendants asserted to the effect that, in the case of goods without cost accounting statement (1% of the total product code), the sales amount equivalent to 50% of the unit price of the pertinent goods is reasonable method of calculation. Even if it is not so, since the tax amount calculated based on the sales amount calculated by deeming the amount equivalent to 30% of the unit price of production ± (30% of the unit price of production ± 100) as the unit cost of production is within the reasonable scope of tax, it should be revoked only exceeding the above calculated tax amount. First, it is reasonable to consider the production cost as 50% of the unit price of goods and calculate the sales amount by considering the unit price of the goods in this case as 30% of the unit price of the goods in this case, it is difficult to determine the unit price of the goods in this case as above, and thus, it is difficult to view that there is no possibility of calculating the unit price of the goods in this case to be less than 50% of the unit price of production as the unit price of the goods in this case.

D) Sub-committee

Of the disposition imposing corporate tax on the Plaintiff Company, the part related to B-1 transaction (part of the disposition imposing corporate tax) and the part related to B transaction in the disposition imposing the value-added tax on the Plaintiff Company’s head office (Article 5) is unlawful in calculating the sales amount.

3) Whether the market price calculation related to the denial of wrongful calculation is unlawful (iv)

Article 52 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the head office or the head office of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall calculate the income amount of the corporation for each business year, regardless of the act or calculation of the income amount of the corporation, if the calculation of the income amount of the corporation is deemed improper. Article 52 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the calculated value of the Plaintiff’s goods shall be calculated based on the rate of interest, rent, and exchange which are applicable or are anticipated to be applicable to ordinary transactions between the parties who are not specially related with the Plaintiff at the time of the application of the above provision regarding the calculation of the market value of the Plaintiff’s goods at the time of the wrongful disposal of the goods concerned (including the calculation of the value of the Plaintiff’s goods at the time of the wrongful disposal of the goods at the market value, and Article 29 (2) and (3) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the value of the goods at the time of the wrongful disposal of the Plaintiff’s goods at the time of calculating the market value of the goods at issue.

4) Sub-committee

The part related to B-1 transaction (including additional duties) and the part related to B transaction (including additional duties) in the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax against the Plaintiff Company shall be revoked. However, the Defendants are unable to calculate the amount of tax related to C-2 transaction, excluding the part related to B-1 transaction, among the disposition of imposition of the tax imposed against the Plaintiff Company, since the Defendants are unable to calculate the amount of tax related to B-1 transaction, which is the corporate tax imposed against the Plaintiff Company, the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax against the Plaintiff Company (including additional duties) shall be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du622, Sept. 10, 2015).

D. Whether the omission of sales in connection with C transactions is legitimate (the determination on the assertion of this case)

After the Defendants calculated the omitted sales amount by comparing the sales amount and reported sales amount of each business establishment of this case as identified in the computerized data of this case in relation to C transactions, they imposed global income tax and value-added tax on the Plaintiff KimA, and the Plaintiff Company’s corporate tax as seen earlier. The circumstances are as follows: (i) the sales amount of each business establishment of this case among computerized data of this case can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings; (ii) the credit card sales amount and cash sales are separate from the sales amount of each business establishment of this case; (iii) the data of the National Tax Service are consistent with the data of the National Tax Service; (iv) Park DD’s clothes sales employee of the same capital store of this case among individual business establishments and KimU stated the same matters in the daily sales report after settling the daily sales records at the time of investigation; and (v) the entry of the same in IT program into the IT program of this case; and (v) the Plaintiff’s calculation of the omitted sales amount of computerized data of this case based on the account books or documentary evidence secured by the Plaintiffs.

F. Whether the disposition of this case contains any illegality in the part of illegal and illegal under-reported additional taxes

1) The part of the additional tax included in the imposition disposition Nos. 4 and 5

Since both the 4 and 5 imposition dispositions (including additional taxes) are as seen earlier, the 4 and 5 imposition dispositions (including additional taxes) are the same as seen earlier, it is not separately determined as to this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion on unfair and under-reported additional taxes among the 4 and 5 imposition dispositions.

2) The part of the additional tax included in the disposition of imposition 1 to 3 and 6 to 9

Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014); Article 26-2 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that if a taxpayer evades a national tax or obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as "illegal acts"), it may not be imposed after the lapse of ten years from the date on which the national tax is assessable; Article 12-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "any fraudulent or other unlawful act prescribed by Presidential Decree" means an act falling under any subparagraph of Article 3 (6) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 29, 2015); Article 3 (6) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 13627, Dec. 29, 2015); Article 26-2 (1) of the former Act provides for entry of the total tax invoices or total tax invoices;

According to the facts below acknowledged, since the plaintiffs underreporting's global income tax and value-added tax base of each business place of this case were underreporting all or part of the plaintiff KimA's global income tax due to unlawful act in relation to C transactions, it is legitimate for the defendants to impose unfair and unfair under-reported additional tax. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' imposition of unfair and under-reported additional tax on C transactions is legitimate. Therefore, the plaintiffs' imposition of unfair and under-reported additional tax on C transactions is illegal.

① At the time of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff KimA stated that “at the time of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff KimA kept only the sales daily report and the trading specifications prepared at each workplace of the instant case, and reversed all.”

② The Plaintiffs, separate from the computerized data of this case, prepared double books (No. 15) and recorded the amount less than the actual sales amount on the said computerized data, and filed a tax return on the basis thereof. On May 26, 2015 and June 3, 2015, Plaintiff KimA contacted IT, an entity operating the logistics program, and requested the Plaintiff to delete all computerized data, such as sales data, input, and inventory of the Plaintiff Company stored in the ITC’s computer program server, and the ITC deleted the said computerized data.

③ Plaintiff KimA’s global income tax in the instant taxable period, the value-added tax in each of the instant places of business, and the corporate tax evasion of Plaintiff KimA by underreporting the sales amount during the instant taxable period, was indicted on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) (tax). The first instance court (Seoul Eastern District Court 2016Gohap00) and its appellate court (Seoul High Court 2017No000) were convicted (current Supreme Court 2017Do00).

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff KimA's claim against the defendant ○○ Head of the tax office, the ○○ Head of the tax office, and the ○○ Head of the tax office shall be dismissed for all reasons. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant ○ Head of the tax office shall be accepted for reasons. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant ○○ Head of the tax office, the ○○ Head of the tax office, the ○○ Head of the tax office, and the ○ Head of the tax office shall be dismissed for all reasons. The decision of the court of first instance is just as above.