Seocho 208west 3656 ( December 31, 2008)

The fact that the customer was subject to a tax investigation cannot be deemed to have known in advance that the correction would have been made and reported.

It is argued that the customer reported the correction in advance by having contact with each other on the fact that he was subject to the tax investigation, but this is a unilateral assertion based on the abstract side, so the recovered amount shall not be deemed to be the outflow from the company.

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

Article 45 (Revised Return of National Tax Basic Act (Revised Return)

Article 106 (Disposition of Income)

1. The part exceeding KRW 13,794,875 of the imposition disposition of global income tax of KRW 197,427,960 for the Plaintiff on August 1, 2008 and the part exceeding KRW 2,070,012 of the imposition disposition of global income tax of KRW 39,753,290 for the year 2004 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

(a) The plaintiff: The representative director of the Si/Gun/Gu Textiles (hereinafter referred to as the "Si/Gun Textiles") in the manufacturing and selling chain of textiles;

(b) Transactions of obligatory data in △△△ (hereinafter referred to as "transaction of non-data in this case");

(1) The supply period: 2003 - 2004.

(2) 거래처 : ★★직물(대표자김○)

(c) Goods traded: the supply of direct goods of KRW 525,953,937 and the receipt of a mutual tax invoice, including the value-added tax (including value-added tax) of KRW 416,828,30 (203), and KRW 109,125,637 (204);

(4) 대금 수령 : 원고의 처인 김◑◑의 은행계좌로 송금 받음

(5) Not reporting value-added tax or corporation tax on transactions without data of this case

(c) Tax investigation into Kim director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office;

(1) Between the flag: October 2006 - November 1, 2006

(2) 조사대상 : 김○이운영하는 (주)★★어콤및★★직물

(3) The content of detection: Purchase and transaction of non-data-free materials, such as non-data-free transactions in this case (A) 2003

(O) from 55 enterprises, such as Do Governor Textiles, etc., 2,653,964,705

and underreporting tax invoices and tax invoices

O Kim : Done at the second written confirmation of November 1, 2006, the content of which is recognized.

(b) a non-material transaction in 2004;

O) The purchase price of 3,210,364,90 won per 83 enterprises, such as Myeon-dong Textiles, etc.

and underreporting tax invoices and tax invoices

O Kim : Done at around October 2006 a first written confirmation that recognizes it.

(d) The report of the change of tax base and tax amount for the business year of 2003 and the 2004 of the fiber of △△ (0).

H. 'The 'Revised Declaration'

(1)Revised Date: January 5, 2007

(2) The omitted supply amount of 478,139,943 won (378,934,819, 20049,205,124 won),

(hereinafter referred to as "amount omitted in sales of this case") shall be reported as gross income industry (other outflow.).

(e) Tax investigation of fibers of the head of ○○ Tax Office on fibers;

(1) The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the tax data on January 15, 2007 and received on January 22, 2007 by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office for the additional investigation of △ Textiles.

(2) On March 23, 2007, the title of the assessment data of value-added tax due to the transaction of the non-data in this case shall be displayed to the Do governor Textiles.

(3) On April 17, 2007, notice of the tax audit of the corporation tax on the fiber of △△△△.

(A)The investigation period: April 30, 2007 - May 11, 2007

(B) Period of the project subject to investigation: January 1, 2003 - December 31, 2004

(c) Grounds for investigation: Where there is a suspicion of false transaction, such as transactions without data, disguised or fictitious transactions;

F. Defendant’s global income tax correction and notification (hereinafter “disposition of this case”).

(1) Date of disposal: August 1, 2008

(2) Grounds for disposition

(A) The omitted sales of the instant case

O It is unclear whether the amount of outflow from the company has been recovered from the plaintiff's funds.

O The revised report was filed with the knowledge of the disposition of correction as to the amount of omission in sales of this case that was released from the company.

O The amount equivalent to the omission of sales in this case was still released from the company and was reverted to the plaintiff.

O Despite the notice of change in the income amount, the amount equivalent to the income tax was not withheld.

(b) Other illegal transactions: Illegal transactions such as transportation cost processing, appropriation, and low-price lease with related parties;

(3) the amount of correction and notice;

(A) 197,427,960 global income tax for the year 2003

(B) 39,753,290 global income tax for 2004

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap 1, 2, 15, 18, 19, 21, Eul 1 through 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's principal

(1) Since the Do governor Textiles collected the amount omitted in sales from the Plaintiff’s funds and filed the instant revised return, the amount omitted in sales was reserved in the company.

(2) ★★직물에 대한 세무조사사실 뿐만 아니라 이 사건 무자료 거래로 인한 ☆☆섬유의 법인세 등에 대한 세무조사 착수 여부를 알지 못하였다.

(3) The proviso of Article 106(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides that a taxpayer shall pay income tax by disposing of income to a person who has already returned the leaked amount to the person who has already returned the leaked amount of income, is not subject to taxation unless it is objectively clear that a taxpayer would abuse benefits under the tax law due to his/her own correction and so long as it is objectively clear that he/she would allow the disposition of internal reservation to be widely permitted, it is invalid as it violates the basic principles of the Income Tax Act, the principle of ability to pay, the principle of substantial taxation, the purport of Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act, the purpose of Article 23 of the Corporate Tax Act, the provisions on property

(4) The disposition in this case, excluding the portion arising from illegal transactions, such as the processing and appropriation of the fiber, and low-price lease with a person with a special relationship, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The omission in sales in the case of △△ Textiles

(A) On January 5, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred the total amount of KRW 90,621,759 from his own account to the Incheon Metropolitan City Textiles Corporation.

(나) 원고는 그 소유의 충북 ▽▽군 △△읍 ■■리 282-1 지상의 공장건물을 담보로 제공하여 ☆☆섬유 영업부장으로 근무하였던 김♧♧이 운영하는 (주)☆☆와이엔디 명의로 2007. 2. 1. 750,000,000원을 대출받아 같은 날 그 중 580,000,000원을 ☆☆섬유 명의로 회사 법인계좌에 입금하였다.

(2) On April 24, 1999, Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s Textiles opened a business and closed the business on September 12, 2007, around 2007.

Each entry of Gap evidence 3 through 14 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, based on recognition

D. Determination

(1) Whether the sale of the instant case was omitted or omitted

(A) According to the above facts, on January 5, 2007, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 670,621,759, and KRW 387,518,184, including the remaining amount omitted from sales on February 1, 2007 ( = 478,139,943 - 90,621,759, and KRW 580,621,759, including the amount of KRW 580,621,759, and the remaining amount omitted from sales, into the corporate account of △△△, a total of KRW 670,621,759, including the amount of KRW 580,00,000.

(B) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

O argument

Article 106 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the amount of unfair outflow from the company shall be collected within the period for filing a revised report under Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and shall be retained as internal reserves, so at least, the part of KRW 387,518,184 which the plaintiff deposited in the company account on February 1, 2007, after the revised report of this case was filed on January 5, 2007 cannot be deemed to have been retained.

O Judgment

- A revised return period under the Framework Act on National Taxes: The period before the head of competent tax office determines or revises the tax base and amount of the national tax and notify the change of the income amount to the fiber of △△, and the plaintiff, in accordance with the provisions of each tax law after the statutory due date of return; the notice of the change of income amount to the plaintiff, on June 14, 2007 (each entry of No. 3-1 through No. 3-3); the disposition against the plaintiff was delayed on August 1, 2008; and the plaintiff returned the amount equivalent to the corrected return and the amount of the omitted sales

- When the amount of outflow from the company is recovered within the reported period and is included in the gross income and reported, it is intended to give the corporation an opportunity to correct himself under certain conditions (the above provision was amended on December 30, 2000 and re-established on February 19, 2005). As long as the reported return and the amount of outflow from the company have been recovered within the reported period, it cannot be deemed that the effect of internal reservation differs in accordance with the order of declaration and recovery. The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(2) ☆☆섬유가 ★★직물에 대한 세무조사 또는 이 사건 무자료 거래로 인한 ☆☆섬유의 법인세 등에 대한 세무조사 착수 여부를 알았는지 여부

(A) Burden of proof: Defendant

In light of the provisions of Article 108 of the Corporate Tax Act, the defendant, who is the tax authority, must prove that the amount of outflow from the company was basically included in gross income with the knowledge that there was correction, such as being notified of tax investigation or being aware of the commencement of tax investigation

(나) 위 인정사실 및 이 사건 변론과정에 나타난 다음의 각 사정을 종합하면 ☆☆섬유가 김○에 대한 세무조사가 종료된 직후(2개월 후)에 이 사건 수정신고를 하고 이 사건 매출누락액을 회수하였다는 사정만으로 ★★직물에 대한 세무조사 또는 이 사건 무자료 거래로 인한 ☆☆섬유의 법인세 등에 대한 세무조사 착수 여부를 알았다고 보기에는 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

O ☆☆섬유와 ★★직물은 2000. 4.경 거래를 시작하였다가 2004년경 거래가 종료된 이래 ★★직물에 대한 세무조사시인 2007년경까지 아무런 거래관계가 없었다(이 점에 관하여 피고는 특별히 다투지 않고 있다).

O The defendant asserts that the defendant filed a revised return of this case with the knowledge that the transaction partner who is engaged in business activities is under tax investigation, and that the transaction partner was under tax investigation due to the omission of sales in this case, and that the process of the tax investigation on Kim ○ was under pre-written prior to the omission of sales in this case. In light of the fact that Kim ○ prepared the first and second confirmation documents around October 2006 and November 1, 2006, Kim ○, regardless of whether the plaintiff or Kim ○, could have contacted and corrected it. However, this is only a unilateral assertion based on the trend, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the specific circumstances.

O ○○ Head of the tax office or the defendant did not make any notification to the plaintiff in relation to the above tax investigation against Kim ○ or there was no entry of a demand for confirmation of specific details of transactions.

O The head of ○○ Tax Office sent a explanatory guide to taxation data after the lapse of two months or three months after the filing of the revised report of this case, and notified the corporate tax investigation.

(3) Actions: The disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim for this case is reasonable and acceptable.