In the event of the omission of report sales, the burden of proof that the omission of report was also the taxpayer.

With respect to the fact that the expenses have been reported or omitted, the existence and amount of the expenses should be added by the verification of the person claiming the loss industry, but it is difficult to believe that the expenses have been paid according to the data submitted by the plaintiff.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 19 (Scope of Losses of the former Corporate Tax Act)

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 22,231,201 of corporate tax for the year 2001, KRW 24,301, and KRW 24,301 of corporate tax for the year 202 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and KRW 279,545,740 of 202, KRW 14,009,200 of 203, KRW 235,897,101 of 204, KRW 242,728,572 of corporate tax for the year 2001 against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and each of the instant dispositions shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff Company concluded a transportation contract with foreign tourists and provided bus transportation services to ○○○○S Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○○○○”) which is engaged in a chartered bus transportation business from 2001 to 2005.

b)The chief of the tax office of the corporation ○○○○ head of the tax office, who has carried out an tax audit of the senior company, was aware that the inspection result Plaintiff underreported the sales revenue of the corporation ○○○ head of tax office;

C. On March 1, 2007, the director of the final tax office notified the Defendant, who is the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff Company, of the omission of sales as above, and the Defendant investigated the omission of sales by the Plaintiff Company, and then notified the Plaintiff Company of the imposition of corporate tax and the change in income amount as follows:

D.The Plaintiff Company shall be charged with the disposition of imposing corporate tax and the disposition of notifying the change in income amount, on May 23, 2007.

The defendant filed an objection against the defendant on July 11 of the same year, and the defendant considered 62,581,860 won, which was paid as employee's benefits, as extra-paid benefits, and accordingly issued a corrective disposition as follows (However, the amount of bonus disposition shall not be reduced from bonus disposition).

E. On October 16, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a request for a tax review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 16, 2007, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, on April 29, 2008, issued a request for a tax review on the amount of KRW 59,224,343, out of KRW 62,581,860, which the Defendant recognized as losses, was excluded from the bonus disposal amount for Kim Il-sung, the representative director, but not entered in the books, but recognized KRW 43,236,714, and the rent of KRW 230,06,230,06, paid to daily workers while renting buses as losses (the following contents are the contents of each of the dispositions in this case).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 26 through 28, Gap evidence No. 29-1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

In the decision on the application for objection and the decision on the request for tax review, the amount included in the deductible expenses shall also be included in the deductible expenses and shall be excluded from the bonus disposal amount.

(a) Value-added tax sales amount;

From April 2001, the Plaintiff Company started transactions with ○○○○○○ Company, and the Plaintiff Company providing services is the weak, so the Plaintiff Company did not receive the value-added tax from ○○○○○○○ Company. The value-added tax amount corresponding to the sales amount should also be deducted from the lower bonus disposal amount to be industrialized as losses.

(b) Miscellaneous pay;

The bus held at the time when the Plaintiff Company first started its business was more than 10 households, and the eight of which was used as a private teaching institute bus, etc. in Domination, the Plaintiff Company, upon receipt of a request to provide transportation services, provided a service subcontract to other travel agencies or vehicle owners, and transported tourists. During that process, the Plaintiff Company, upon receipt of a request to provide transportation services, paid the service to the driver who provided the services, and the amount reaches 427,04,725 won. Of the above amount, 152,935,237,00 won was reflected in the Isma book, and 43,237,00 won was excluded from the bonus disposition amount recognized as losses in the course of national tax assessment and excluded from the bonus disposition amount. Accordingly, the remaining amount of 230,872,725 won (i.e., 427,04,725 won -152,935,000 won - 437,97,09).

(c) Expenses for loans;

The Plaintiff Company was operating a vehicle from the borrower due to the shortage of transportation vehicles as above, and the loan fee incurred in the process reaches KRW 276,171,320. Among them, only KRW 230,006,230, which is the amount verified by the other party’s personal information, etc., shall be included in the deductible expenses and deducted from the bonus disposal amount, the remainder of KRW 46,165,090 ( = 276,171,320 - 230,06,230) shall be included in the deductible expenses, and the bonus disposal amount shall be deducted from the bonus disposal amount.

(d) The amount equivalent to borrowings;

On April 16, 2001, the Plaintiff Company purchased a bus from Gyeonggi-do ○○○○53, Gyeonggi ○○○○○○○○79 on April 16, 2001, and purchased a bus from Gyeonggi-do ○○○○○67, Gyeonggi ○○○68 on June 28, 2002. On September 30, 2002, the Plaintiff Company purchased a vehicle from Gyeonggi-do ○○○○○71, Gyeonggi ○○○71, and Gyeonggi ○○○72 on September 30, 2002. The Plaintiff Company, which had no financial capacity, borrowed KRW 479,937,00 from the former ○○○ (an employee of the Plaintiff Company), the former ○○○ (her husband of the former ○○), and the former ○○○ (her husband of the former ○○) to purchase the bus as above. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Company shall be included in deductible expenses in the amount to be deducted.

3. Whether the dispositions of this case are proper.

(a) Related statutes;

Article 19 (Scope of Losses of the former Corporate Tax Act)

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

B. Determination

(1) If a person liable for tax payment finds any revenue omitted in filing a return on the tax base of corporate tax, etc., the competent tax office may include the omitted revenue in gross income. If a person liable for tax payment has omitted the return on the revenue to be included in gross income in filing a return, not only the omission of the return on the revenue to be included in gross income but also the omission of the return on the expenses to be included in deductible expenses, the existence and the amount of such expenses shall be determined by the verification of the person who asserts the loss industry. Unless there is such proof, it shall be said that there is no additional expense (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du4556, Nov. 12, 199). Accordingly, in this case, the existence and amount of money at issue as to whether the income should be included in deductible expenses, such as the output tax amount, etc., should be proved by the Plaintiff company, and then, it shall be considered whether there is any proof by dividing it by the Plaintiff company's assertion.

(2) Determination on the assertion of value-added sales tax amount

The Plaintiff Company asserts that the output tax amount of value-added tax that was not paid by ○○○, Inc., should be included in deductible expenses pursuant to Article 19 subparag. 8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 19891 of Feb. 28, 2007), but there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, not trust, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Even if the Plaintiff Company supplied services to ○○○○, a domestic company, even if it did not receive value-added tax corresponding thereto, it is difficult to conclude that the amount equivalent to the value-added tax that was not paid, as above, is bad debt, and therefore, this part of the Plaintiff Company’s assertion is without merit.

(3) Determination as to a miscellaneous master

According to each of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 5 through 8 (each number No. 8), Gap's evidence No. 9, witness Jeon-soo, and last column's testimony as shown in this part of the plaintiff company's assertion, the plaintiff company may recognize the fact that the plaintiff company remitted a certain amount to a specific person without trust, but such fact alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the above specific person received a subcontract from the plaintiff company or received a benefit as a worker employed by the plaintiff company as a single worker, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise, the plaintiff company's assertion in this part is not reasonable.

(4) Determination as to loan and loan agreement

According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 11 in the preparation of the plaintiff company as shown in this part of the plaintiff company's assertion, each testimony of witness No. 11, witness No. 10, and last 00, and each statement of No. 10 to No. 5 (the statement of each passbook) can be acknowledged that the plaintiff company remitted a certain amount to a specific person. However, such facts alone are insufficient to readily conclude that the above specific person is a person leasing or leasing a vehicle to the plaintiff company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, and therefore, this part of the plaintiff company's assertion

(5) Determination of the amount equivalent to the loan principal

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 14 through 20, the facts that the Plaintiff Company purchased the vehicle at the time when the Plaintiff Company claimed. However, according to the evidence Nos. 4, 10-1 through 5, it appears that there is no particular relation between the date transferred from ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○, to the deposit account of the Plaintiff Company, and the date of the purchase of the vehicle (the former ○○, etc. wired or withdrawn an unspecified amount to investigation). The evidence Nos. 22 and 25 (each loan certificate) stated to the effect that the highest ○○○ was lent KRW 13,00,000 to ○○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, and the former ○○○○○○, the Plaintiff Company 2, who was the Plaintiff Company’s ○○○, was also the Plaintiff Company’s 1’s representative director on October 20, 202, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff Company paid interest to ○○○○, the former 2, the Plaintiff’s.

(6) Sub-committee

As above, the argument of the Plaintiff Company is without merit, and each of the dispositions of this case is not unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case by the plaintiff company is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.