“Fraud or other unlawful act” means a deceptive scheme or other active act which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes;

"Fraud or other unlawful act" means an act which enables the evasion of taxes, and a deceptive scheme or other active act which, immediately, makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, is considered to be illegal under social norms.

Article 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

2011Guhap35941 The revocation of revocation of the refusal to pay a reward

KimA

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

May 16, 2012

June 1, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s refusal of payment of KRW 000 to the Plaintiff on October 21, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 14, 2010, and August 21, 2010, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant, on two occasions, the Plaintiff reported that “BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BB”) in the name of the representative director was evaded by not issuing a tax invoice at the time of the sale of the product but receiving the transaction price from the OB bank account in the name of the representative director, etc.”, and submitted Nonparty Company’s order list and the OB bank account change in the name of the OO. Based on the Plaintiff’s tax evasion report, the Defendant estimated KRW 00 and KRW 00 of the corporate tax and KRW OO of the value-added tax.

B. On August 12, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of a monetary reward for tax evasion with the Defendant. On October 10, 2011, the Defendant paid 000 won (i.e., the standard amount for calculating the monetary reward, KRW 000, KRW 5%, and KRW 5%,000) to the Plaintiff.

C. On October 21, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of additional monetary rewards to the Defendant on the ground that “the tax evasion act of the company abroad is not an offense under the Tax Act, such as the preparation and management of double books, and the rate of payment of monetary rewards shall be applied by 15%,” and the additional monetary rewards OO [the base amount for calculation of monetary rewards estimated by the Plaintiff x 15%) - 000 won]. On October 21, 2011, the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the act of tax evasion by the company abroad does not constitute an offense under the Tax Act” against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

D. On January 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on April 17, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The identification of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The non-party company should apply 15% of the monetary reward rate by omitting sales and depositing the omitted sales into the account of the representative director's representative director's account.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

In the crime of tax evasion, "Fraud or other unlawful act" means an act which enables the evasion of tax by social norms, i.e., a deceptive scheme or other active act which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and does not constitute mere failure to file a tax return under tax law or making a false report without accompanying any other act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1345, Mar. 24, 201). In addition, it is generally difficult to recognize that an act of tax evasion by lending a deposit account in another person's name and without any specific motive, circumstance, etc., should not be determined that the act of tax evasion would be concealed, but it is difficult to see that the act of tax evasion by the Plaintiff constitutes 90Da1345, supra, or that it is considerably difficult to acknowledge that the act of tax evasion was committed by the Plaintiff, i.e., false recording or under reporting, or other active act of exchange means, such as checks, or that it constitutes a false deposit account under other than the name of the Plaintiff, or that it appears to be deposited with another account owner.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, it is dismissed, and it is decided as per Disposition.