If a corporation seeks revocation of the notice of change in the amount of income, whether an individual can be seen as going through the procedure of the preceding trial.

The claim for the cancellation of a corporation is merely a notification of the change in the amount of income as a disposition against the corporation, and it cannot be deemed that the corporation has sought the cancellation of the notification of the change in the amount of income on behalf of the individual on behalf of the individual.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Each part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the notification of changes in the amount of income made to the plaintiffs on February 21, 2005.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, 6-6, Eul evidence 1 and 3-9, 10, 11, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 19, 19, 21-1, 2, 2, and 3, respectively.

A. The joint plaintiff ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. in the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as the "○○ Construction") is a corporation closed on April 6, 1995 and engaged in construction and interior decoration business. The plaintiff Kim○ was the representative director of ○○ Construction from December 21, 200 to June 7, 2001; the plaintiff Kim Jong-tae was the representative director of ○○○ Construction from June 7, 2001 to June 26, 2003; 26.38% as of the end of April 2001; 49.45% as of the end of February 2002; 203.3% as of the end of June 38, 201; 201.

B. On May 9, 2003, 00, ○○ Construction transferred ○○ General Construction to △ Construction Co., Ltd.** * 500,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as 'the first issue') while appropriating 537,40,000 won in advance of service payment to 2001, 583,40,000 won in the business year of 2002, 583,40,000 won in advance of service payment, and 203,000 won in advance of the business year of 203, 200, 2000 won in advance of advance payment, and 35,000,000 won in advance of the business year of 203.

C. Around November 2004, the Defendant: (a) conducted a tax investigation on ○○ Construction; (b) stated that the transfer value of the instant real estate was 10,080,000 won for the first issue; (c) paid in lieu of 1,050,000 won for the debts to ○○ Construction; and (d) took over the bank debts of ○○ Construction for ○○ Construction; (c) stated that 0,030,000 won for the service charges of 00,000 won for 200,000,000 won for each of 200,000,000 won for 20,000,000 won for bonus and 5,000,000 won for 20,000 won for each of 30,000,000 won for 20,000,000 won for bonus and 20,000 won for 36,006,0636,04,000.

D. The ○○ General Construction filed an objection on June 4, 2005 with respect to the notice of change in his income amount, but was dismissed on August 25, 2005, and the appeal was filed on December 2, 2005, but was dismissed on July 5, 2006.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The defendant's assertion

Since the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit without undergoing each of the pre-trial proceedings, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) In light of the fact that the Supreme Court changed the previous opinion and recognized the disposition of notification of change in income amount as a en banc Decision on April 20, 2006, which was the date of the filing of the instant petition for objection and the instant petition for adjudication filed by ○○ Construction as a party, although the plaintiffs are not specified as the parties, the above petition for objection and the instant petition for adjudication are specified as the subject matter of cancellation, and that the Supreme Court could not file an objection and a petition for adjudication because it is apparent that it would be dismissed before that time, the plaintiffs should be deemed to have gone through

See also the plaintiffs could not dispute the notification of change in the amount of income because they did not receive the notification of change in the amount of income.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the plaintiffs should be deemed to have gone through the procedure of the previous trial

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 3-1, 3, each of the parties to an objection and a request for adjudication filed by ○○ Comprehensive Construction is indicated only as ○○ Comprehensive Construction, and the notice of change in the amount of income (for corporate notification) on ○○ Comprehensive Construction is indicated as subject to cancellation, and with respect to the plaintiffs, based on the notice of change in the amount of income to the plaintiffs, the fact that the global income tax for the year 2001 through 203 for 203 was imposed and collected as the due date for payment from December 26, 2005 to March 31, 206 can be acknowledged.

On the other hand, the following facts are examined: ① The plaintiffs are obligated to report and pay additional tax base of global income tax by receiving the notice of change in income amount (for the purpose of notification of income) from the defendant against the plaintiffs; ② ○○ integrated construction becomes final and conclusive by receiving the notice of change in income amount (for the purpose of notification of corporation) from the defendant for ○○ integrated construction; thus seeking the cancellation of ○○ integrated construction is merely a notification of change in income amount as a disposition for ○ integrated construction, and it cannot be deemed that ○○ integrated construction seeks the cancellation of the notification of change in income amount on behalf of the plaintiffs on behalf of the plaintiffs; ② Even if ○○ integrated construction failed to go through the pre-trial procedure in accordance with the previous Supreme Court precedents that did not recognize the nature of disposal of the notification of change in income amount, the plaintiffs received the notification of change in income amount, which did not confirm specific liability for payment of tax against the plaintiffs, and thus, the plaintiffs received the notification of imposition of global income tax that became final and conclusive by establishing specific liability for payment of global income tax amount.

Whether the plaintiffs received the notice of change in the amount of income

The defendant sent a notice of change in the amount of income (for the notification of income earner) to the plaintiffs by registered mail on February 21, 2005 is as seen earlier, and as long as there is no evidence to support that the above notice of change in the amount of income (2) was returned, it is reasonable to view that the above notice of change in the amount of income (2) was served around February 21, 2005. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case are unlawful, and all of them are dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and all of the appeals of the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.