The fiscal year of accrual of earnings and losses of a domestic corporation shall be the fiscal year which includes the date on which the concerned earnings and losses are settled.

If the exercise of a claim does not legally restrict the exercise of a claim, the right is once determined and included in the profit for the pertinent business year, and even if the possibility of recovery of the claim is nonexistent due to the debtor's insolvency, it is merely a ground for disposal of the claim as bad debt when it is confirmed as impossible to recover, and it does not affect the time of accrual of income

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 40 of the Corporate Tax Act

2014Guhap58686 Corporate tax and value-added tax revocation disposition

○○ Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

November 04, 2015

December 18, 2015

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

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

On January 2, 2012, the Defendant revoked all the disposition of each corporate tax and value-added tax (including additional tax) listed in the separate sheet (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff on January 2, 2012 (the Plaintiff’s petitioning for revocation of each disposition of collection of value-added tax for the first and second years 201

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff entered into a telephone information service contract (hereinafter referred to as "the contract in this case") with AAA(hereinafter referred to as "AAA"), Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as "CCC"), Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as "DD"), and DD(hereinafter referred to as "AA, etc.") respectively, and provides telephone information service (hereinafter referred to as "the contract in this case") to users of information using a circuit network **** providing telephone information service such as voice hosting, securities information, and traffic consultation (hereinafter referred to as "the service in this case"). The tax invoice issued by AA, etc. has been reported and paid corporate tax and value-added tax with the issue amount of the purchaser's tax invoice issued previously by AA, etc. as the tax base under the Corporate Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act.

B. The Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax base and tax amount from the second to the second half of 2006 to the year 2009, and included information usage fees from the provision of telephone information services through the wireless telephone, but omitted from the tax base the information usage fees from the provision of telephone information services through the wireless telephone. In addition, the Plaintiff included the information usage fees from the year 2006 to the business year 2009 to the amount of income, while the information usage fees from the provision of telephone information services through the wireless telephone were omitted from the amount of income.

C. Meanwhile, on August 17, 2011, the Plaintiff reported and paid each value-added tax for the first and second years of 201, the Plaintiff added the other sales amount of KRW 0,000,000 to the base of value-added tax for the first period of 2010 (=the scheduled return amount of KRW 000,000,000 + the final return amount of KRW 000,000,000) to the tax base of value-added tax for the second period of 2010, while a revised return was filed to add the other sales amount of KRW 0,000,000 to the tax base of value-added tax for the second period of 200,000 + the final return amount of KRW 00,000,000 + the amount of value-added tax equivalent to the amount of value-added tax already paid.

라. 피고는 원고가 유선전화를 통해 전화정보서비스를 제공한 데 따른 정보이용료에 관하여 부가가치세 및 법인세 신고를 누락한 것으로 보아[아래 <표1>과 같이 2006년 제2기부터 2009년 제2기까지의 부가가치세 과세표준 합계 0,000,000,000원 및 2006사업연도부터 2009사업연도까지의 법인세 과세표준 합계 0,000,000,000원을 누락한 것으로 보았다], 2012. 1. 2. 원고에 대하여 별지 목록 기재와 같이 ① 2006년 제2기부터 2009년 제2기까지의 부가가치세 합계 0,000,000,000원(각 가산세 포함) 및 ② 2006~2009 사업연도의 법인세 합계 0,000,000,000원(각 가산세 포함)을 각 경정.고지하였고(이하 '이 사건 각 부과처분'이라 한다), 그 무렵 2006~2009 사업연도의 각 누락수입금액 중 미회수채권으로 확인된 부분을 제외한 나머지 금액의 귀속자를 원고의 대표자(2006 사업연도에는 김ㅇㅇ, 2007 사업연도에는 김ㅇㅇ와 성ㅇㅇ, 2008~2009 사업연도에는 각 성ㅇㅇ이다)로 하여 상여로 소득처분을 하고 원고에 대하여 각 소득처분에 따른 소득금액변동통지를 하였다(이하 '이 사건 각 소득금액변동통지'라 한다).

Table 1

Total Omission of Taxation

Tax bases (value-Added Tax) omitted

Tax Base (Corporate Tax)

Second Period, 2006

00,000,000 won

00,000,000 won

1, 2007

0,000,000,000

0,000,000,000

207 Second Period

0,000,000,000

1, 2008

0,000,000,000

0,000,000,000

Second Period, 2008

0,000,000,000

1, 2009

0,000,000,000

0,000,000,000

Second Period, 2009

0,000,000,000

Total

0,000,000,000

0,000,000,000

E. Meanwhile, on January 2, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of KRW 00,00,000 for the first time value-added tax for the year 2010 (=00,000,000 - already paid tax amount - KRW 000,000,000 for the second time value-added tax for the year 2010 (=00,000,000 - already paid tax amount - KRW 000,000 for the first time value-added tax for the year 2010). ③ The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of the general under-reported additional tax for the first time value-added tax for the year 200,000 for the total of KRW 00,000 for the additional tax for the year 200,000 for the second time and additional tax for the year 200,000 for each of the additional tax for the year 200,000.

F. On March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for adjudication on March 30, 2012. The Tax Tribunal, on February 24, 2014, re-audited the amount leaked to the extent of the Plaintiff’s charges for telephone information collected, and subsequently corrected the notification of changes in each of the instant income amount and dismissed the Plaintiff’s remaining request for adjudication.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 16, 20 through 30 (including relevant numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s notice of payment of each value-added tax on the first and second occasions of 2010 is merely a collection procedure for collecting the final and conclusive tax, and thus, not a taxation subject to the revocation lawsuit. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the imposition of each value-added tax on the first and second occasions of 2010 among the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. According to Articles 22(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same), Article 10-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Articles 18(1) and (4) and 19 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10409, Dec. 27, 2010), each of the value-added taxes on 1 and 2 years is a tax amount determined at the time of the scheduled return and final return by the Plaintiff who is the taxpayer and the taxpayer to pay the amount of tax together with the returned amount of tax. In addition, Articles 45(1)1 and 46(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory due date of return may submit a revised tax base return by notifying the tax base and amount of tax to the taxpayer before the determination or correction of the tax base and amount of national tax.

C. On August 17, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a revised return on the tax base and tax amount of each value-added tax for the first and second years of 2010 as seen earlier. As such, the Plaintiff’s tax base and tax amount of each value-added tax for the first and second years of 2010 revised. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff did not pay the insufficient tax amount following the revised return. On January 2, 2012, the Defendant issued a tax notice stating that the Plaintiff would pay the difference between the value-added tax calculated according to the revised return and the already paid value-added tax for the first and second years of 2010, which were determined by the Plaintiff’s report. In light of the relevant statutes, the Defendant’s act constitutes a collection disposition for the collection of each value-added tax for the second and second years of 2010, which became final by the Plaintiff’s report.

Since the collection disposition orders a taxpayer to perform a final tax claim, it is a law enforcement on a specific fact that directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. Therefore, the collection disposition on the first and second levels of value-added tax in 2010 constitutes an administrative disposition that is the subject of a revocation lawsuit, and thus, the Defendant’s principal safety defense is without merit.

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) ① The Plaintiff’s status as a specific telecommunications business operator is****** because it is irrelevant to the business, ② the Plaintiff produced telephone information and stored it in the database server,*** deliver telephone information to AA, etc., which is the business owner of the service, through the telecommunications line equipment and facilities after entering into a contract for interconnection with AA, etc., on the other hand, the Plaintiff and **** the Plaintiff’s provision of telephone information to DD if the Plaintiff provides telephone information to the user. ④ The Plaintiff did not distinguish between the owner of the right to use the information to collect and to collect the service from the owner of the right to use the service and the right to use the service from the owner of the right to use the information under the premise that the Plaintiff could not be seen as exercising the right to use the service under the contract between the Plaintiff and the owner of the right to use the service and the owner of the right to use the information under the contract of this case* The Plaintiff could not be seen as being in violation of the law of the right to use the information under the contract of this case* the right to use of the Plaintiff.

2) In addition, as seen earlier, ① the Plaintiff is not the supplier of the instant service, ② the amount equivalent to the irrecoverable information usage fee is deemed the Plaintiff’s income or profit that the Plaintiff could not own, and thus, it goes against the substance over form principle to impose corporate tax and value-added tax. ③****** the service’s credit transaction with 100%, and all powers and means regarding the claim for information usage fee are not possible for the Plaintiff to exercise its claim at the time of the occurrence of the information usage fee claim. In light of these factors, the Plaintiff and AA et al. agreed to calculate the Plaintiff’s price based on the information usage fee actually received from the information user in the instant contract, etc., so the Plaintiff’s disposition should arrive at the time when the amount collected and settled by AA et al. reaches the date of payment to the Plaintiff, and the amount should be determined as the price for the service in this case, ④ the Plaintiff’s payment of corporate tax cannot be conducted for the information user’s collection of the information usage fee, and thus, the Plaintiff’s tax base of information usage fee is unlawful.*

3) When the Plaintiff provides AA, etc. with telephone information, the Plaintiff could not distinguish between telephone information on users via wire telephone and telephone information on users through wireless telephone, and the price for each of them. As seen in the above Section 2, the Plaintiff’s sales amount was KRW 00,000,000, which was actually paid by AA, etc. from 2006 to 2009, and the amount reported by the Plaintiff during the same period was KRW 00,000,000,000, which was more than the actual sales amount, and thus, the Plaintiff did not omit sales of information provision through wire. Accordingly, each of the dispositions of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff omitted a sales report on the amount equivalent to the information usage fee due to the provision of telephone information through wire telephone.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Major contents of the instant contract

A) The main contents of the instant contract concluded between the Plaintiff and CCC are as follows.

Telephone Information Service Business Contract

��목적 : 이 계약은 원고가 정보이용자에게 전화정보서비스를 제공하고 그 대가로 정보이용자로부터 수납하는 정보이용료를 CCC이 원고를 대신하여 과금, 징수결정, 청구 수납한 후 원고에게 정산 지급하는 일련의 업무(이하 '회수대행'이라 한다)에 관한 정보이용료 회수대행계약을 체결함에 있어 필요한 사항을 규정함을 목적으로 한다(제1조).

��상호��로고 사용제한 등 : 원고는 본 계약상 정보제공서비스를 수행함에 있어서 CCC의 상호나 로고를 사용해서는 안되고, 이를 위반하여 CCC이 제3자로부터 소송 등을 당한 경우에 원고는 자신의 책임과 비용으로 CCC을 사전 면책시켜야하며, 이로 인하여 CCC이 입은 일체의 손해를 배상한다(제4조, 제3조 제3항).

��시설이용요금 : CCC은 본 계약의 체결 후 원고와 합의한 개통일까지 원고의 정보제공에 필요한 회선개통 및 장비설치를 완료하고(제5조), 시설이용요금(원고가 정보제공을 위해 사용하는 CCC의 장비, 회선 및 시설에 대한 요금)은 회선개통 완료일부터 기산하여 계산한다(제9조, 제10조).

��정보이용료

(C) The information usage fee that the CCC received and paid to the Plaintiff shall be calculated based on the information usage fee that the information user paid in full by the due date (Article 13).

(Request and Payment) All the powers pertaining to claims for information usage fees, receipt, adjustment of charges, and refund of overpaid or erroneously paid fees (hereinafter referred to as "claims") for information users shall have the CCC. CCC does not claim any additional expenses other than the claim agency fees to the Plaintiff in connection with the vicarious performance of the claims. CCC uses the information users.

The details of the claim for information use fees shall be provided to the plaintiff at the end of the following month of the use month, and the remainder after deducting the claim agency fees from the information use fees received to the plaintiff at the end of the following month of the payment month (Articles 14 and 15)

(A) CCC shall do its best to recover attempted charges in the same manner as the general telephone charges at the time of occurrence of the attempted charges, and shall pay the relevant information usage fee after deducting the claim fee if such charges are collected later: Provided, That the request shall not be made on behalf of the contractor if the cause for the cancellation, reduction, or request of the policyholder arises (Article 16).

��권리 및 의무 : 원고는 정보이용자의 보호를 위해 계속적이고 안정적인 정보를 제공하고, 관계 법령을 위반하거나 정확하지 아니한 내용의 정보를 제공하여서는 아니 되며, 음성 메일/채팅 서비스의 경우에는 실명인증을 반드시 하여야 하고, 정보이용자의 통화내역을 수정, 삭제하지 않고 보존할 의무가 있으며, 정보이용자의 자료 요청시 즉시 이를 제공하여야 한다(제17조). CCC과 원고는 신의성실의 원칙에 따라 이 계약을 준수하고, 이 계약의 수행과 관련하여 상대방에게 손해를 초래한 경우에는 이를 배상하여야 한다(제25조).

B) The main contents of the instant contract concluded between the Plaintiff and AA are as follows.

A contract for the lease of telephone information service circuit during actual hours.

��목적 : 본 계약서는 '실시간 전화정보서비스' 사업에 필요한 회선 임대에 관하여 필요한 제반 사항을 규정하는 데 목적이 있다(제1조).

The term "on-time telephone information service" means a service that provides real-time information by telephone, such as general counseling and stress counseling, such as transport, entrance, law, tax, and home counseling, or dialogue between community members. The term "on-time telephone information service provider" means a person eligible to provide real-time telephone information service, who is registered as a value-added telecommunications business operator and a specific telecommunications business operator, and refers to a provider of telephone information service items, excavation, fostering, and management (Article 2).

��상표의 사용금지 : 원고는 AAA의 회사명, 로고 등을 사용할 수 없다(제16조).

��회선임대 및 사용, 회선이용요금 : 원고는 계약의 체결 후 실시간 전화정보서비스 사업에 필요한 AAA 회선과 장비를 확보하여 서비스를 개시하여야 하며, 원고가 서비스 제공을 위해 사용하는 AAA의 장비, 회선 및 시설에 대한 요금은 이용약관에 따른다(제4조, 제9조).

�¸�수납대행수수료 : 원고가 제공하는 서비스 이용고객의 정보이용료는 AAA가 수납대행하며, 수납대행의 대가로 AAA에 납부하는 수납대행수수료의 수수료율, 계산, 청구 및 수납절차는 별도로 체결한 '정보이용료 수납대행계약' 등에 따른다(제11조).

��의무 및 손해배상: 원고는 광고시 상호명, 정보이용료, 정보제공자 연락번호, 불법정보 신고센터 번호를 반드시 기재하여야 하고(제13조), 원고가 제공한 정보와 관련하여 제3자로부터 분쟁이 제기된 경우 일체의 법률적 책임은 원고에게 있으며, 이로 인해 AAA에 발생한 손해를 배상한다(제15조).

C) The main contents of the instant contract concluded between the Plaintiff and BB are as follows.

Telephone Information Service Contracts

��목적 : 본 계약은 BBB이 원고로부터 정보를 제공받아 이용고객에게 전화정보 서비스를 제공함에 있어 필요한 사항을 규정함을 목적으로 한다(제1조).

��계약의 정의 : 본 계약은 원고가 BBB의 전화망 및 장비 등을 이용하여 전화정보를 제공하고, 그 정보를 원하는 고객이 전화를 통해 이용한 후 지불한 정보이용료를 BBB이 수납하여 원고에게 정보제공의 대가를 지불하는 것으로 정의한다(제2조).

��회선개통 : BBB은 본 계약 체결 즉시 원고의 정보제공에 필요한 장비 설치 작업에 착수하며, 원고에게 승낙하는 개통일까지 장비설치를 완료한 후 회선개통을 한다(제5조).

��이용요금 : 정보이용료 회수대행수수료율은 별지 1과 같이 정한다(제12조).

��이용안내 : 원고는 제공정보의 앞부분에 원고의 상호, 제공 정보명, 정보이용 요금, 민원 응대 안내전화 번호를 포함하는 안내를 실시하여야 한다.

��정보이용료 : 이용고객에 대한 정보이용료 청구, 수납, 요금조정, 과오납 환급 등에 관한 일체의 권한은 BBB이 가진다(제15조). BBB이 원고에게 지급하는 정보제공수수료는 이용고객에게 청구하여 정해진 기일 내에 수납한 정보이용료를 기준으로 산정하고, 정보제공수수료의 지급시기는 정보이용료 수납월 익월 말일로 한다. BBB은 정보이용료 발생총액, 수납액, 미수액 및 정보이용료 지급내역을 매월 원고에게 통보한다(단, 이용자에 대한 상세 정보는 제공하지 않는다).

If the plaintiff does not pay normally the facility use fee to be paid to BB, BB shall suspend the payment of the information provision fee from the amount of the information provision fee to be paid to the plaintiff until the first deduction or full payment is made (Article 16).

��권리 및 의무 : 원고는 이용고객의 보호를 위해 계속적이고 안정적으로 정보를 제공하고, 이용고객의 안내 및 민원접수를 위한 전화를 영업일 또는 영업시간 내에 별도로 운영하여야 한다(제18조).

2) The Plaintiff, AA, etc. received and traded so-called so-called “tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff in a way that the Plaintiff and the recipient of the instant service were the value of supply for the service of the Plaintiff and the recipient of the instant service, including AA, with the value of supply for the service of this case.

3) AA, etc. did not account the information usage fees of the instant service as separate sales and profit-making for the information users, including AA, and did not account for other claims, and****** by recognizing them as sales and profit-making of AA, etc. on account of accounting, issued a tax invoice for the instant service separately from the “tax invoice for reverse issuance” on the information usage fees.

4) From 2006 to 2009, DNA notified the Plaintiff of the final amount of claim on the 30th day of the month following the month in which the information service fee of this case occurred, or on the last day of the month following the month in which the information service fee of this case occurred. In addition, DNA notified the Plaintiff of the settlement amount during the period from 27th to 29th day of the following month following the month in which the information service fee of this case occurred, and settled the collection agency fee to be received by DNA and the final amount to the Plaintiff on the basis

5) From 2006 to 2009, AA had failed to pay the information fee of the instant service, or notified the Plaintiff of the information users whose recovery is impossible.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry Eul's evidence of Nos. 12 through 18, each fact inquiry results of this Court's AA and DD, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In light of the following circumstances, regarding the assertion that the Plaintiff is not the supplier of the instant service, the Plaintiff is the supplier of the instant service to the information user, and the AA et al. is deemed to have leased the instant service to the Plaintiff during the process of providing the instant service and performed only the role of claiming and receiving information usage fees on behalf of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

A) In providing telephone information service to the information user, AA et al. explicitly states that the contract of this case is "an agency contract for collecting information usage fees" in charge of affairs such as overcharge, collection decision, claim, settlement, and payment on behalf of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the contract of this case contains matters concerning the calculation of information usage fees, claim receipt, settlement payment, etc. that AA et al. should pay to the plaintiff, and matters concerning the claim agency fees and the method of payment, etc. of facility usage fees that A et al. should receive from the plaintiff. This contract of this case made between the plaintiff and DD (see evidence 15) provides that "the purpose of this contract is to provide matters necessary for providing telephone information service to the user by receiving information from the plaintiff and providing telephone information service to the user." However, the contract of this case contains other provisions of the contract of this case (Article 2 (1)), which are merely a provision of information through telephone networks and equipment, and it appears that the plaintiff's provision of information and information conflict with the contents of the D service, which were delivered to the plaintiff.

B) In addition, according to the instant contract, the Plaintiff cannot use the name, logo, etc. of AA, etc. in providing the instant service, and stipulates that prior to the provision of the instant service, the Plaintiff shall guide the Plaintiff’s trade name, information name, information usage fees, etc.

C) Before the Plaintiff actually provides the instant service to the information user, the Plaintiff provided a guidance to the effect that the Plaintiff directly provided the instant information and added the information usage fee separate from the call fee. Therefore, it appears that the information user was aware that the Plaintiff, other than the AA, etc., provided the instant service (on the other hand, there is no circumstance that the information user knew that the AA, etc. provided the instant service during the process of receiving the instant service).

D) The above guidance for the Plaintiff’s information user can be deemed as the offer of the instant contract. The consent of the information user and the use of the telephone information service can be deemed as the consent of the Plaintiff’s offer. Therefore, the contract between the Plaintiff and the information user for the instant service is concluded (it is not an essential premise for the establishment of the contractual relationship with the Plaintiff to know who the information user is the other party to the provision of information). On the other hand, even if the information document was sent by AA, etc., it constitutes an agent or agent of the Plaintiff’s expression of intent that the Plaintiff ought to make the information user under the instant contract with the Plaintiff and AA, etc., and constitutes an agent or agent of an effective declaration of intent).

E) The telephone information service provided by the Plaintiff is a real-time consultation and sound hosting.

These services include the Plaintiff’s direct provision to the information user, and the information user uses the above services****** AAA, etc., who is the business owner of the service, cannot be viewed as resale of the information user with the provision of telephone information services from the Plaintiff.

F) The Plaintiff received a tax invoice for reverse issuance at the supply price of the Plaintiff and the instant service supplier from AA, etc., while receiving the purchase tax invoice for the claim agency fee, etc. from AA, etc., and reported the value-added tax and the corporate tax.

G) Article 58(11) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides a telecommunications business operator under the Telecommunications Business Act with telecommunications services provided to users of another telecommunications business operator and with collection of prices on behalf of another telecommunications business operator, the business operator who provided such telecommunications services may issue a tax invoice to other telecommunications business operator, and deliver a tax invoice to other telecommunications business operator. The above provision recognizes an exception to the method of issuing a tax invoice by reflecting the characteristics of telecommunications business in which the telecommunications business operator is strictly divided into the content and scope of the business and the installation and operation of related facilities due to the common telecommunications business, the special telecommunications business operator, and the value-added telecommunications business operator, and the main body of the installation and operation of related facilities are difficult to collect the fees from users of other telecommunications business. In light of the purport

h)**** AA and DD, the business owner of the service, were not in charge of sale or profit-making account for the part in which the information user received the information fee for the service of this case.

2) ***** As to the assertion that the Plaintiff’s tax base of value-added tax and corporate tax should be determined on the basis of the amount actually received by AA, etc., a business owner of the service, etc.

According to Articles 7(1) and 13(1)1 and (3) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, the provision of a service constitutes the supply of a service, and where payment is made in cash for the supply of a service, it constitutes the tax base of value-added tax. The bad debt on the supply value after the supply of a service is not deducted from the tax base. Meanwhile, according to Article 9(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 22(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, in the case of ordinary supply, the time when the provision of service

B) According to Articles 13, 14(1), 15(1) and (3), and 19-2(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9898, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same), and Article 11 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20720, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same), the corporate tax base on income for each business year of a domestic corporation shall be the amount calculated by deducting losses, non-taxable income, and income deduction in sequential within the scope of income for each business year. The amount of income for each business year of a domestic corporation shall be the amount of earnings generated from transactions that increase the net assets of the domestic corporation, which falls under the amount of earnings generated from transactions that cannot be recovered from the debtor's bankruptcy, and Article 11 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the amount of income for each business year shall not be deducted from deductible expenses.

In principle, in cases where there is a time interval between the time when the right which is the cause of income is confirmed and the time when income is realized, it shall be deemed that there is such time income at the time when the right is determined and the income is calculated for the pertinent business year. However, in order to determine that income has been realized, it is not necessary until the income has been realized.

Even if the right to receive income is realized, it shall be mature and confirmed to the extent that it is considerably high in terms of its realization, and whether the right to receive income is mature and finalized or not shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the specific nature and content of each right and the various matters of fact-finding law and law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du14802, Nov. 25, 2004). In this case, in determining whether to include a claim in gross income when there is no legal limitation on the exercise of the claim under the Corporate Tax Act, if there is no legal limitation on the exercise of the claim, the right is once determined and included in gross income for the pertinent business year. Even if the possibility of collection of the claim is lost due to the debtor's insolvency, it is merely a reason that can be treated as a bad debt when it is finalized, and it does not affect the time of attribution of income resulting from the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du

C) Considering the following circumstances that can be known by adding the purport of the entire pleadings to the relevant provisions, legal principles and the aforementioned factual relations, the time when the Plaintiff completed the provision of the instant service to the information user shall be deemed to have arrived at the time of the supply of the service under the Value-Added Tax Act and the time of attribution of earnings under the Corporate Tax Act. The tax base of each value-added tax and each corporate tax for the second period from 2006 to 2009 to 2009 shall be deemed to be the full amount of the information usage fee, which is the price for the Plaintiff to provide the instant service,

(1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff agreed to receive information usage fees calculated in accordance with the type of telephone information service, time to use information, etc. from the information user if the information user provides telephone information service. However, as the Plaintiff provided the instant service to the information user by leasing the phone from AA, etc., the Plaintiff is entitled to receive the full amount of information usage fees from the information user in return for the supply of the instant service.

(2) Since the method of calculating the information use fee, which is the price for the provision of the instant service, and the method of collecting, settling, and paying information use fee, etc. under the instant contract, the Plaintiff’s right to the information use fee is considerably mature and finalized at the time of completion of the provision of the instant service.

(3) The collection of claims for information usage fees by AA, etc. is merely due to the Plaintiff’s act of exercising claims by proxy to AA, etc. under the instant contract for the convenience of claiming and receiving information usage fees, and such circumstance alone does not necessarily lead to any legal limitation on the Plaintiff’s exercise of claims.

(4) After the completion of the supply of the instant service, AA et al. occurred due to the termination of a communications contract between the information user and the user’s failure to make a claim. In such a case, the Plaintiff received the name, address, use number, etc. of the relevant information user from AA et al.

(5) If the collection of information usage fee claim becomes impossible, it is only a matter of whether the bad debt can be included in deductible expenses as bad debt in the pertinent taxable period, and whether it can be deducted from the output tax amount as bad debt tax amount.

3) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not omitted sales on the provision of information through the wire telephone by reporting a larger amount than the actual sales amount, the Plaintiff asserted the above assertion on the premise that the information use fee actually received from the second to the second to the second to 2009 was the sales amount. However, the Plaintiff’s sales revenue belonging to the above taxable period is not the information use fee actually received from the AA, etc., but the entire amount of the information use fee for the instant service provided by the Plaintiff, as seen in the above Section 2, as seen in the above Section 2. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s return is based on the total amount of information usage fees from providing telephone information services through wired and wireless telephone during the second period from 2006 to 2009 as the tax base of value-added tax and corporate tax.Each of the instant dispositions that calculated the sales omitted and corrected the value-added tax and corporate tax for the said taxable period are legitimate.

4. Whether the imposition and collection disposition of the value-added tax and the additional tax in the first and second stages of the instant year 2010 are lawful

The Plaintiff filed a claim for revocation of the collection disposition of value-added tax for the first and second years of 2010, but specific;

The reason for illegality has not been asserted.

In addition, value-added tax is an obligation to pay the amount of value-added tax once the return becomes final and conclusive and is payable at the time of the return, so it does not result in a change in the liability for payment unless the return is corrected following the subsequent return. Even if the initial return is erroneous, so long as the defect does not constitute abrupt invalidation due to a significant and apparent defect, the propriety of the initial return in the procedure of disputing the disposition of collection of value-added tax pursuant to the initial return cannot be contested (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1313, Apr. 28, 1992). However, evidence submitted to this court alone cannot be viewed as having a significant and apparent defect in the Plaintiff’s report on the tax base and the amount of tax payable for each value-added tax and the revised return on August 17, 2011, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for value-added tax cannot be accepted.

B. Whether each disposition imposing additional tax on each value-added tax on the first and second occasions of 2010 is legitimate

On January 2, 2012, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,00,00 for the general underreporting of the value-added tax for the first period of 2010, which was not paid after filing a revised return, and KRW 00,00,00 for the additional tax for the additional tax, and KRW 00,000 for the general underreporting of the value-added tax for the second period of 2010, and KRW 12,946,617 for the additional tax for the additional tax for the additional tax.

Article 18(1), (4), and Article 19 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10409, Dec. 27, 2010); however, the Plaintiff filed a request with the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business for the preliminary return period within 25 days after the end of each taxable period to pay the tax base for the preliminary return period and the amount of the payable tax for each taxable period. The Plaintiff filed a final return with the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business within 25 days after the end of each taxable period to pay the tax amount for each taxable period. The Plaintiff failed to pay the tax amount for each taxable period when filing a final return with the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business within 25 days after the end of each taxable period. As such, the Plaintiff did not return and pay other sales by the due date for the return and payment of the value-added tax for each taxable period, and did not pay the corresponding amount for each additional tax for 20 years and 10 years and 20 years respectively.

5. Conclusion

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