beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is to be changed or added as follows, and it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff's additional assertion by the appellate court under paragraph (2) below, thereby citing it by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and by
(1) The term "(1) of the first instance court's decision" was changed into "(2010Du6083, Jan. 27, 2011; 2010Du19294, Nov. 29, 201, etc.)" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du6083, Jan. 27, 2011; 2010Du19294, Nov. 29, 201). The following is added to the third part of the first instance court's decision. The Plaintiff asserts that the first instance court's name account can not be deemed as new materials which the tax authority became aware of at the time of the first instance court's tax investigation, and that it cannot be deemed as objective and reasonable materials to support the collection of the bill of exchange and Promissory Notes, etc., because it cannot be seen as objective and reasonable materials to support the collection of tax evasion.
In full view of the evidence No. 3 and evidence No. 4-2 of the argument as a whole, the following facts are revealed in the document No. 3 and No. 4-2 of the company bill discount (as of March 23, 190) that “the borrowed account, other than the key issue, is indicated in No. 1 of the lawsuit, and the key borrowed account, is indicated in No. 2 of the lawsuit, and the above document is submitted by the plaintiff as evidence of the argument that the fee of this case was already included in the first tax investigation against the plaintiff, and the facts prepared by the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s investigation office at the time of the first tax investigation are acknowledged, but the above lawsuit of this case and the second tax investigation of this case and the purport of No. 4-2 of the whole pleadings.