The judgment of innocence in a criminal case does not prove that the processing labor cost has been used for the construction cost.

A not guilty verdict on the charge of embezzlement by appropriating processing labor costs in a criminal case is due to the fact that there was no evidence to prove that the defendant actually withdrawn and used processing labor costs, and since it was not required for actual construction costs, the initial disposition that excluded processing labor costs from deductible expenses is legitimate.

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

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

1. Each of the changes in income amount of KRW 1,141,393,00 as of July 3, 2002, and KRW 2,189,179,810 as of July 3, 2003, and KRW 91,383,30 as of July 3, 2006, in the attached list of imposition imposed by the Defendant against Plaintiff ○○ Development Co., Ltd.

2. All of the remaining claims of the Plaintiff ○○ Development Company and the claims of the Plaintiff ○○ Comprehensive Construction Company are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff ○○ Development Company and the Defendant out of the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into three parts, and one shall be borne by the remaining Defendant, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff ○○ Construction Company and the Defendant shall be borne by the said Plaintiff

The "date of the defendant's disposition" in the attached Form No. 1, the "amount of imposition" imposed on each plaintiff in the column of "tax and income" on each plaintiff in the column of "disposition Date" shall be revoked both the imposition of each amount (including additional tax) and the notification of change in income amount.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff ○○ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Development”) holds office from July 29, 2001 to the representative director on the corporate register as a company that runs the housing construction business, etc., while Plaintiff ○○ General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ General Construction”) holds office as the representative director from March 30, 2002 to the company that runs the housing construction business.

B. The Defendant: (a) considered the Plaintiff’s 2’s ○○○○ Construction & Construction at the construction site of 00 and 206.7.1; (b) considered the Plaintiff’s 2’s 1,147,300 won as the aggregate of the tax invoices for 1,43,350 won; and (c) considered the 649,00,00 won as the aggregate of the tax invoices for 20 years for 20 years for 20 years for 20 years for 20 years for 200 and for 3 years for 20 years for 30 years for 20 years for 200 and for 4 years for 30 years for 20 years for 200, for 204 for 3 years for 200, for 200, for 204 for 3 years for 4 years for 20,000 won for 3 years for 20,000 won for 2 years for 203 years for 20.

C. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal on February 28, 2007 on each of the instant dispositions and notice of change in income amount, but all of the appeals were dismissed on June 11, 2007.

D. In the first instance court, a public prosecution was instituted on the grounds that (i) received false tax invoices from ○○ Construction, etc.; (ii) embezzled the processing costs pursuant to the above false tax invoices and evaded corporate tax; (iii) embezzled the above amount and evaded corporate tax by appropriating labor costs in the construction site of ○○ Venture Project and the construction site of ○○○○○ Site; and (iv) evaded value-added tax using the false tax invoices received from ○○ Construction, etc.; and (iii) was instituted on the grounds that the public prosecution was instituted on the grounds that the aforementioned Defendants were guilty and (iii) evaded value-added tax using the false tax invoices received from ○○ Construction, etc.; and (iv) the both parties filed an appeal and filed an appeal, which was dismissed in its entirety.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 10, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1 to 2-7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case and notice of change in income amount are legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Each disposition taken against the Plaintiff ○○ Development and notice of changes in the amount of income

Although false tax invoices from △△ companies, etc. were collected, and excessively appropriated labor costs in relation to ○○○○○ Construction, the supply price and excessive labor costs on such false tax invoices were paid again to ○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○, and were used for construction costs, such as electricity, dust, fire fighting, etc., and was disbursed as the cost of Plaintiff○○ Development’s ○○ Venture Project. As such, the aforementioned amount was not disbursed as the cost of Plaintiff○○ Development, but rather disbursed as the cost of Plaintiff○○ Development’s ○○ Development, and the notice of changes in the income amount was unlawful.

(2) Each imposition on the Plaintiff ○○ Construction and notice of change in the amount of income

The plaintiff ○○ Construction is in line with the calculation of the processing labor cost in the accounting book, but it is for the accounting process of the pre-execution construction cost by the head of the field office, or for the execution of the construction cost in the hostile field among various construction sites executed by the plaintiff ○○ Comprehensive Construction, or for the calculation of the cost that is difficult to obtain evidential documents (civil petition settlement cost and farm lodging cost, etc.) as labor cost. Since most of the labor cost excessively appropriated in the accounting book is used for the construction cost of the plaintiff ○○ Comprehensive Construction, the above amount is not spent for the construction cost of the plaintiff ○○ integrated Construction, and it is unlawful to impose the above dispositions and notify changes in the amount of income for the plaintiff ○○ Comprehensive Construction on the premise that it was leaked out of the company.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 67 (Disposition of Income under the former Corporate Tax Act)

Article 106 (Disposition of Income)

C. Determination on Plaintiff ○○ Development

(z) As to the imposition of each value-added tax and corporate tax

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, Plaintiff ○○ Development may recognize the fact that the false labor cost was calculated by including wages for workers who did not actually work in connection with ○○ Venture Business, or by setting up a labor cost ledger by increasing the working days. There are no objective data that can be deemed that the supply price and processing labor cost under the tax invoice were actually used for the construction cost of this case. Although it was found not guilty of the charge that ○○○ was charged with embezzlement of the processed labor cost of this case in the relevant criminal case, this is merely because there was no evidence to prove that ○○○ was actually withdrawing and using the processed labor cost of this case. In light of the fact that it was proved that the above amount was not actually used for the said construction cost, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the supply price and processing labor cost of the false labor tax invoice of this case were not included in deductible expenses, and thus, it does not constitute the Plaintiff’s calculation of the input tax base and the supply price of the processed labor cost of Plaintiff 202 through 204 per se for 20 years.

(2) On each notice of change in income amount

According to Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same), when determining or revising the corporate tax base, Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree provides that the amount which is clearly included in the calculation of earnings and for which the attribution of the outflow from the amount is unclear shall be deemed to be reverted to the representative and shall be deemed to be recognized and disposed of. The corporation's abnormal disposition system on the representative under the Corporate Tax Act shall not be based on the fact that the representative has generated such income, but shall be deemed to be a bonus to the representative without regard to certain facts which can be recognized as such act in order to prevent unfair acts under the tax law by the corporation. In such a case, the representative of the corporation subject to the bonus disposition shall be strictly

However, in cases where the amount leaked out of the company is unclear, the representative shall be deemed to have accrued, and a person who is deemed to have actually controlled the management of the corporation shall be deemed to have been the representative, and a person who is an executive, such as an executive, who is not a minority shareholder, etc. and a person with a special relationship with him/her, shall be deemed to have actually controlled the management of the corporation, together with the requirement that the total number of outstanding stocks or total amount of investment in the corporation concerned will be at least 30 percent of the total number of issued stocks or the total amount of investment in the corporation concerned, and the requirement that the person shall be deemed to have actually controlled the management of the corporation concerned, and if a report is made to an executive, such as a shareholder, etc. under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the representative of the corporation shall be deemed to have been the representative. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the above provisions, the representative of the corporation referred to in the above provision shall be deemed to have been registered in the corporate register, or shall be the person who actually controlled the management of the corporation, even if the person fails to meet the requirements as the representative.

In this case, there is no evidence to deem that the health team and the highest ○○ Development was registered as the representative director on the corporate register of Plaintiff ○○ Development, or that it satisfied the requirements as an executive officer, such as the shareholder in the above ○○ Development. Therefore, the maximum ○ Development cannot be deemed as the representative of Plaintiff ○○ Development as referred to in the above provision. Therefore, without considering the remaining arguments of the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s notice of change in the income amount of Plaintiff ○ Development cannot be deemed unlawful.

D. Determination on Plaintiff ○○ Construction

In full view of the evidence as mentioned above and evidence Nos. 19 and 34 evidence, Plaintiff ○○ Construction demanded the head office to submit evidentiary documents as if it actually paid labor costs to the head office ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 200.).

In addition, there is no evidence to confirm that the non-deductible amount should not be leaked out of the company, so the above amount was leaked out of the company and its attribution is unclear, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the notice of change in the amount of income was lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's notice of change in the income amount of ○ Development should be revoked in an unlawful manner. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for ○○ Development shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim for ○○ Development and the plaintiff's claim for ○○ Construction shall be dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.