Changwon District Court 2006Guhap1706 ( October 19, 2009)

National High Court Decision 2005No1298 (Law No. 12, 2006)

Whether it is an interim retirement allowance actually paid.

The authenticity is doubtful due to the reversal of the statement by the employee who asserted that he/she received an interim retirement allowance in the course of the tax investigation, but did not submit relevant documents, and the statement that he/she received an interim retirement allowance, etc.

I same as E in the decision.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Port Consumption E Plaintiff shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

[Claim]

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 108,754,920, global income tax of KRW 353,135,790, global income tax of KRW 2001, global income tax of KRW 187,837,260, which reverts to the Plaintiff on April 10, 200, shall be revoked.

【Purpose of Appeal】

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff seeking revocation is revoked. The Defendant revoked each disposition of KRW 114,739,444 out of the global income tax of KRW 108,754,920 for the Plaintiff on April 10, 2004, KRW 108,149,941 for the global income tax of KRW 353,135,790 for the global income tax of KRW 353,135,790 for the year 2001, and KRW 177,751,202 for the global income tax of KRW 187,837,260 for the year 202.

1. Circumstances of dispositions of the instant case;

A. On August 31, 200, the Plaintiff operated an Ansan Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "CCC") with the trade name "BB-dong 234-5 above the fourth floor." On the land adjacent to the above land on August 31, 200, the Plaintiff extended the 6th floor of a reinforced concrete structure slab roof on the land located within the same 234-13, and completed registration of preservation of ownership on May 8, 2001, the construction of the existing building and the extension building was completed as one building (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case"), and continued to operate the repair of the building of this case and the interior interior interior interior interior construction from around that time until 2002.

B. During the period from 2000 to 2002, the Plaintiff confirmed the Plaintiff’s total revenue amount as KRW 4,110,515,301, KRW 4,973,016,026, KRW 4,347,55,041, KRW 113,013,013, KRW 408, KRW 1,380, KRW 252, KRW 73,605 for the year 2001, and KRW 889,73,605 for the year 2002.

C. However, from December 1, 2003 to February 14, 2004, the Defendant reported global income tax by omitting the following (1) amount from the total income amount to the necessary expenses for the period from 2000 to 2002.

(1) Parts omitted in importation

D Food inspection expenses 11.7 million won (9 million won for the year 2000, 4.1 million won for the year 2001, 6.7 million won for the year 2002), 2.8 million won for food operation expenses (2.8 million won for the year 2001), ICL surgery expenses (6 million won for the year 2002), 132,725,464 won for the coast guard (hereinafter referred to as the "nex of this case"), 132,725,464 won for the 2001 (63,282,273 won for the year 2001, 69,443,191 won for the year 202)

(2) Part of the necessary cost excessive industry

(A) Amount exceeding the depreciation costs of the building 429,839,153

(B) 454,472,589 won (158,685,126 won for the year 2000, 167,014,668 won for the year 2001, 128,772,795 won for the year 2002): Expenses related to domestic affairs or unrelated to business.

(C) Employees’ interim retirement allowances of 181,204,000 won (96,304,000 won reverted to year 2001, and 84,900,000 won reverted to year 2002): Processing disposition

(d) Automobile lease fee of KRW 88,838,280

(E) 49,300,000 won (in 2002) for 17 firemen

D. Accordingly, on April 10, 2004, the Defendant added the amount of the above C. (1) revenue, and added the amount of the above C. (2) to the necessary expenses. On April 10, 2004, the Defendant issued a correction and notification (the correction and notification by increasing the amount of the above C. (1) revenue to the Plaintiff (excluding the already paid tax) by increasing the amount of the global income tax for the year 200, KRW 128,945,540, global income tax for the year 200, global income tax for the year 2001, KRW 371,190,830, global income tax for the year 2002, global income tax for the year 224,254,2

E. On July 5, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) on December 3, 2004, the Defendant: (b) partially rendered a decision that the amount of KRW 49.3 million should be included in the necessary expenses of the global income tax for the year 2002 global income tax for the 17 firemen listed in the above paragraph (c) (2) (e); and (c) accordingly, the Defendant corrected and notified the amount of KRW 224,254,240 as global income tax for the year 202 by reducing the amount of KRW 201,498,60 as total income tax for the year 202.

F. On February 28, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a request for adjudgment with the National Tax Tribunal. On May 12, 2006, the Director of the National Tax Tribunal made a partial decision that the amount of the above C.(2)(d) (automobile rent) should be included in the necessary expenses for each taxable period.

G. Accordingly, on May 26, 2006, the Defendant issued a correction and notification by reducing the global income tax amount of 128,945,540 won for 200 years as KRW 108,754,920, and the global income tax amount of 371,190,830 won for 2001, as KRW 353,135,790, and the global income tax amount of 201,498,600 for 2002 as KRW 187,837,260 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground for Recognition]: Facts without dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 12, 18 (including all types of evidence), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Scope of the judgment of this court;

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit identical to the purport of the claim in the first instance judgment against the Defendant, asserting that the amount of income of the instant safe store among the omitted income under paragraph (1) of the same Article should not be included in the gross income, and that the sum of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the above Article 1-3 (2) should be included in the deductible expenses as necessary expenses, and the judgment of the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing all of the Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal only for the remainder, excluding the sum exceeding the limit of the amount exceeding the depreciation cost of the building under Article 1-3 (2) (a) among the judgment of the first instance court, excluding the amount exceeding the limit of the depreciation cost of the building under Article 1-3 (2) (a).

3. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's principal

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case contains an error of law in misunderstanding the tax base as follows, and sought the revocation thereof.

(1) Part of the income amount at issue

At the time of the disposition of this case, the Defendant added the amount of revenue pool from the above boundary to the Plaintiff’s income amount, considering that the Defendant was operating the Plaintiff in substance at the time of the disposition of this case, but the above pool store was not related to the Plaintiff since Song-A, an employee of the hospital of this case, Song-D in the name of Jeon-E under the name of another employee, which is all related to the Plaintiff

(2) Part of interim retirement allowance.

The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 181,204,00 as an interim retirement allowance to its employees with the consent of the instant hospital employees from 2001 to 2002, but the Defendant did not reflect it as necessary expenses in rendering the instant disposition. As such, the amount should be included in the necessary expenses.

(3) Parts of welfare expenses, etc.

During the period from 2000 to 2002, the Plaintiff spent 454,472,589 won in total, including welfare expenses, entertainment expenses, and expendable goods, in relation to the business of the instant hospital, as necessary expenses, the Defendant did not reflect it in the disposition of the instant case, and thus, the said amount should be included in the necessary expenses.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) On the basis of the amount of income from the border point of this case

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe that Song-A is an actual business operator of the border point of this case, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the actual business operator of the border point of this case is not the Plaintiff, since it is reasonable to deem that the actual business operator of the border point of this case is not the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff, in full view of the following circumstances: Gap 21 through 26, 30, 32, and 35 evidence (including all of the numbers) and some of the testimonys of Gap 21 through 26, 30, 32, and 35 evidence of this case (including all of the numbers) and the testimonys of the witness of the trial of this case. In full view of the circumstances as seen below, it is reasonable to deem that the actual business operator of the border point of this case is the Plaintiff, not the Song-A. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

First, the name of the business operator in this case is in the front E, who is in office as the head of the inspection office of the hospital in this case, and the head of the Tong whose revenue amount is deposited in the above head of the government office of the above hospital in the process of managing most of the funds. As to this, the plaintiff argued that the actual business operator of the above-mentioned branch was in the front E in the name of the business operator as Song-A, but the plaintiff did not present any reason to obtain the payment for the use of the name (as the plaintiff seems that Song-A is operating the awareness point as a woman, the supply price is lower than that of other safe points operated by the woman, and it is difficult for the elderly to operate the above awareness point, such as it is difficult for the elderly to operate the above awareness point by making a business registration under the name of Jeon-A and making a business operation, but it is difficult to believe that the reason itself is persuasive).

Second, while requesting a judgment with the National Tax Tribunal on February 28, 2005, the Plaintiff first asserted that adding up the amount of income of the Plaintiff to the income amount of the Plaintiff, and this position did not change even at the time of the filing of the lawsuit in this case ( July 28, 2006). The Plaintiff asserted that the actual business operator of the above Anari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si was Song A and did not assert that the actual business operator of the above Ana-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si was SongA and did not assert that the actual business operator of the above Ana-ri-ri-ri-ri-si was Song because of a kind of suppression atmosphere in the course of the tax investigation, and that at the time of filing the lawsuit in this case, the actual business operator was found to have erred in preparing a complaint only by the materials present in the process of the tax investigation.

However, after undergoing a tax investigation from December 1, 2003 to February 14, 2004, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the Defendant on July 5, 2004, which was initially issued a disposition of partial reduction of the initial disposition on December 10, 2004, and received a request for a judgment with the National Tax Tribunal on February 28, 2005 that the automobile rent should be included in the necessary expenses on May 12, 2006, and thereafter, filed the lawsuit in this case on May 26, 2006. Considering that the Plaintiff’s objection against this part of the case before filing the lawsuit, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was not aware of any inconsistency with the procedure of the lawsuit in this case for the first time during the period of the trial prior to filing the lawsuit, and that the Plaintiff could not be viewed as the Plaintiff’s allegation that it was clearly contradictory with the procedure of the lawsuit in this case for the first time during the second time during the period of the trial prior to filing the lawsuit.

Third, the transaction partner at the store of this case supplied sirens, etc. to the hospital of this case and issued a tax invoice or transaction statement with the trading partner as the hospital of this case. On January 13, 2004, 2004, EE received the price in the account book of the hospital of this case and made a statement (No. 16 evidence) that he paid the price for goods in cash to himself. In light of the above statement made on January 13, 2004 when the tax investigation with the plaintiff was under way, this GG is a third party who is not related to this case, and this statement made on January 13, 2004 when the tax investigation with the plaintiff was under way.

Fourth, there was a fact that the Plaintiff was deposited into the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff immediately after the withdrawal of KRW 10 million from the deposit account in the name of the former EE, in which the amount of the income of the instant safe store was managed. According to this fact, it is not unreasonable for the Plaintiff to think that it was not the actual business operator of the said safe store.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that Song paid the money borrowed from his parent under the name of his parent's medical treatment, and according to the health account and evidence Nos. 31-1 and 2, the mother of Song-A from Sep. 25, 2002 to Dec. 16, 2002, the mother of Song-A had already received medical treatment at his university-affiliated Busan District Hospital from Sep. 30, 2002 to Nov. 14, 2002; however, in full view of the fact-finding on the statement No. 1 of evidence No. 26 and the fact-finding on the HH Bank Business Support Center head of this Court, it is difficult to recognize the balance of the deposit account at the time of the above 16,162,472 (the above-mentioned level was 30,000 won and the balance of the deposit account at the time of the above 2030,000 won, as otherwise alleged by the plaintiff 29,201.

(2) The retirement allowance for interim settlement is paid.

(A) Since the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of taxation, the tax authority bears the burden of proving necessary expenses, which are the basis of the determination of taxable income, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving necessary expenses. However, the deduction of necessary expenses is more favorable to the taxpayer, and the facts constituting the basis of necessary expenses are located within the control area of the major taxpayer. Thus, the tax authority has difficulty in proving it, and it is reasonable to have the taxpayer prove the burden of proof in consideration of difficulty in proof or equity between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu10909, Jul. 28, 1992; 97Nu13894, Jul. 10, 198; 97Nu13894, etc.). In particular, it is necessary to prove that a tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer has been falsely prepared without a real transaction, and that the tax invoice has been presented to the extent of 160Nu1964, etc., 29697.

(B) On the premise of such legal doctrine, whether the Plaintiff paid KRW 181,204,00 to the employees of the instant hospital during the period from 2001 to 2002, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part of the Plaintiff is without merit, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 27 (including all of the numbers) and the witness KimD of the first instance trial, and all of the testimony of the E are known through the entire purport of the evidence Nos. 8, 10, 19, 21, and 23.

First, even though the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to submit evidentiary materials related to the interim payment of retirement allowances on several occasions in the course of the instant tax investigation, it is doubtful that the authenticity of the above documents is doubtful, considering that the Defendant submitted the minutes of the labor-management council and the interim settlement application in the process of filing the instant objection, and the written confirmation of receipt of interim retirement allowances (Evidence A2-1 through 28) only when the instant lawsuit was filed.

Second, on December 16, 2003, the E testified that the Plaintiff did not receive the interim retirement allowance from the Plaintiff during the instant tax investigation, and reversed the statement that he received the interim retirement allowance (Evidence 19) and that he did not request the Plaintiff to pay the interim retirement allowance for the reason that it is necessary to pay marriage expenses. Accordingly, on July 31, 2002, the E testified that the Plaintiff received the interim retirement allowance amounting to KRW 25 million with the said deposit account (Article 8402-01-109434). The Plaintiff also asserted this.

However, there is a question as to whether EE has made a request for payment of interim retirement allowances to the said deposit account managed by EA on the ground of EA, and further, according to each part of the evidence No. 8 and No. 27, the above 25 million won can be recognized as the fact that EE used by EA (under the records, it seems that EE could have known such fact). Since the above fact-finding of EE’s testimony is inconsistent with the above fact-finding, there is no doubt as to whether the above 25 million won has been paid as interim retirement allowances, it is reasonable to view that EE’s initial statement has credibility.

Third, although the plaintiff asserts that some of the interim retirement allowances were paid in cash, the plaintiff did not submit evidentiary documents evidencing that he/she deposited in the account with the exception of the above 25 million won (Article 1 island witness KimD and SongA testified that he/she received interim retirement allowances through his/her own account, but the plaintiff did not submit financial data that correspond to his/her testimony). The plaintiff also failed to submit reliable financial data related to the source of funds (the plaintiff argued that he/she paid KRW 157,200,000 as part of the interim retirement allowances that was withdrawn in cash on December 21, 201, but it is difficult to believe that he/she paid KRW 154,967,040 as retirement allowances on December 31, 201, and that it is difficult to keep the plaintiff's assertion that he/she paid the interim retirement allowances in cash with the view of the above 150,500,0000 won, and thus, it is difficult to do so.

Fourth, in order to recognize the amount of money paid each year as the interim settlement amount of retirement allowances under Article 8 (2) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, there is a request for individual and explicit interim settlement of accounts by an employee. The period of employment subject to interim settlement should be the past employment period as of the date when the interim settlement of accounts is requested, and the amount of retirement allowances should be clearly presented. However, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the payment of retirement allowances is made not only for each employee, but also for each employee, but also for the payment of retirement allowances by adding a considerable amount to the statutory retirement allowances according to the employee’s contribution.

(3) Welfare expenses, etc. on behalf of others

(가) 앞서 본 법리에다가 을5, 10호증의 각 기재와 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정 되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 원고는 2000년부터 2002년까지의 기간 중 종합소득세 신고 에 있어 복리후생비 합계 512,567,268원, 접대비 합계 72,424,994원, 소모품비 합계 239,310,201원, 여비교통비 합계 116,729,124원, 차량유지비 합계 74,707,161원, 도서인 쇄비 합계 247,855,260원, 수수료 합계 93,438,073원, 광고선전비 합계 144,584,040원, 운반비 합계 226,800원, 통신비 합계 22,050,240원, 협회비 합계 2,601,000원, 사무용품 비 합계 7,325,100원 등 총 합계 1,534,269,261원을 필요경비로 산입한 점, 이에 관하 여 피고는 원고가 제출한 자료 등을 토대로 하여 가사 관련 경비이거나 업무무관 경비 라고 보이는 복리후생비 합계 272,385,300원, 접대비 합계 58,818,097원, 소모품비 합 계 52,534,882원, 여비교통비 합계 30,183,377원, 차량유지비 합계 11,370,973원, 도서 인쇄비 합계 5,335,270원, 협회비 합계 1,480,000원, 광고선전비 합계 460,000원, 수수료 합계 414,800원, 의료용소모품비 합계 350,000원, 사무용품비 합계 112,000원, 통신 비 합계 24,890원, 운반비 합계 3,000원 등 총 합계 454,472,589원(당초 신고액의 29.6% 상당)에 대하여는 일일이 구체적 부인사유를 적시하면서 필요경비로 산업하지 아니하고, 나머지 1,079,796,672원(당초 신고액의 70.4% 상당)에 대하여는 필요경비로 산입한 점, 피고가 필요경비로 인정하지 않은 원고의 대체적인 지출내역을 살펴보면, 이 사건 병원 소재지가 아닌 타 도시(서울, 김해시, 양주시, 포천시, 강원도 용평 등)에서 지출되거나, 혹은 공휴일 또는 근무시간 중에 가정용 생필품구입, 아동서적, 의류비, 유흥비, 외식비, 선물구입 등으로 지출되거나, 아니면 관련 증빙서류가 없고 사용처가 불명한 점{구체적으로 몇 가지 예를 들면, ① 원고는 2000. 2. 12.(토요일) 19:47경에 서울 종로구 소재 NN문고에서 병원에 비치할 133,500원 상당의 서적을 구입하고[마산 검안과 2000년도 필요경비 부인 내역서(갑6호증)의 순번 174번], 같은 날 서울 강동구 KK동 소재 삼환서점에서 병원에 비치할 5만 원 상당의 서적을 구입하였다고 주장하나(같은 내역서 순번 179번), 위와 같이 같은 날 서울 소재 각각 다른 서점에서 병원에 비치할 서적을 구입하였다는 것은 이례적이어서 과연 병원에서 사용할 목적으로 서적을 구입하였는지 의문이 든다[원고는 그 다음날인 13. 서울 강동구 KK동 소재 PP유통슈퍼에서 사용한 45,120원을 출장경비로 계상하였다가(같은 내역서 순번 190번), 이 사건 소송계속 중에 필요경비에 해당하지 않는다고 종전의 주장을 철회한 점에 비추어 보아도 그렇다]. ② 원고는 2000. 2. 16. 11:22경 김해시 외동 소재 김해 MMMM에서 병원식당에서 사용하기 위하여 30,010원 상당의 식자재(수입 갈비 등)를 구입 하였다고 주장하나(같은 내역서 순번 195번), 위 병원과 김해 MMMM와의 거리는 약 30배 이상 떨어져 있는바, 이와 같은 거리상의 위치와 구입시각이 근무시간인 점에 비추어 볼 때 위와 같은 식자재를 병원식당에서 사용하기 위하여 구입하였다고 보기는 어렵다. ③ 원고는 2000. 4. 8.(토요일)에 서울 종로 소재 세운전자상가에서 48만 원 상당의 이 사건 병원에서 사용하기 위하여 전산용품을 구입하였다고 주장하나(같은 내역서의 순번 354번), 토요일에 마산이나 그 인근 지역이 아닌 서울에서 위와 같이 병원에서 사용할 전자용품을 위 병원의 직원 등이 직접 구입하는 것이 이례적이어서 병원의 업무에 사용하기 위하여 위 전자용품을 구입하였다는 위 주장을 선뜻 믿기 어렵다. ④ 원고는 2000. 4. 23.(일요일) 12:47경에 마산시 신포동 소재 대우백화점에서 병원식당에서 사용하기 위하여 14,560원의 식자재(조개살, 참외 등)를 구입하고, 같은 날 19:00경에 김해시 외동 소재 QQQ마트에서 병원식당에서 사용하기 위하여 1,100원 상당의 식자재(상추)를 구입하였다고 주장하나(같은 내역서 순번 391번, 392번), 같은 날 거리상으로 약 30km 이상 떨어진 각각의 가게에서 병원에 사용할 목적으로 식자재를 구입하였다는 것은 이례적이어서 과연 위 식자재를 병원식당에서 사용하기 위하여 구입하였는지 의문이 든다. ⑤ 원고는 2000. 7. 1.(토요일) 13:07경 김해시 외동 소재 롯데리아에서 직원 간식용으로 15,100원 상당의 치즈버거 등을 구입하였다고 주장하나 (같은 내역서 순번 561번), 위 병원의 직원 등이 위 병원에서 약 30배 이상 떨어진 곳에 위치한 패스트푸드점인 롯데리아에서 직원 간식을 구입하였다고 하는 것은 이례적이다. ⑥ 원고는 2000. 8. 25.(금요일) 17:14경에 김해시 내동 소재 KK스포츠에서 위 병원의 직원인 배YY의 생일선물로 43만 원 상당의 물품을 구입하였다고 주장하나(같은 내역서 순번 686번), 위 병원 소재지가 아닌 김해시 내동에서 근무시간에 직원 생일선물로 의류 등을 구입하였다는 것은 흔한 일은 아니다. ⑦ 원고는 2001. 6. 16.(토요일) 김해시 부원동 소재 홀인원주점에서 직원회식비로 100만 원 상당을 사용하였다 고 주장하나(마산 CCC 2001년도 필요경비 부인 내역서 순번 59번, 기록 제724면), 토요일에 위 병원 소재지가 아닌 김해시에서 직원들의 회식을 하였다는 것은 이례적이며, 원고는 또한 2001. 10. 14.(일요일) 마산 회원동 소재 RR가든에서 직원들의 회식비로 150만 원을 사용하였다고 주장하나(같은 내역서 순번 42번, 기록 제738면), 일요일에 직원들의 회식을 하였다는 것은 흔치 않은 일이어서 실제로 직원들의 회식이 있었는지 강한 의문이 든다. ⑧ 원고는 2002. 6. 13. 직원 최SS, 김TT 2명의 근무복(양복)의 구입비용으로 1,294,000원 상당을 사용하였다고 주장하나(마산 검안과 2002년도 필요경비 부인 내역서 순번 399번, 기록 제759면), 1명당 647,000원의 비용이 소요될 정도의 고가의 양복을 백화점에서 구입하여 근무복으로 주었다는 것은 이례적이어서 경험칙에 비추어 쉽게 믿기 어렵다. ⑨ 원고는 2002. 6. 15.(토요일) 16:12경에 서울 명동 소재 UUU백화점에서 위 병원에서 사용하기 위하여 2,453,000원 상당의 전자제품을 구입하였다고 주장하나(같은 내역서 순번 401번, 기록 제759면), 토요일에 서울에 있는 백화점에서 위와 같은 제품을 구입할 합리적인 이유를 기록상 찾을 수 없어, 과연 위 전자제품을 병원에서 사용하기 위하여 구입하였는지 의문이 들고, 더욱이 원고는 같은 날 같은 백화점에서 사용한 49,000원을 출장경비로 사용한 것이라고 주장하다가(같은 내역서 순번 402번, 기록 759면) 이 부분 주장을 철회하였는바, 같은 날 동일인이 사용한 것으로 추단되는 금액을 어떤 근거에 의하여 이와 같이 서로 다르게 분류를 하는지 그 기준을 알기 어렵다.} 등을 종합, 대비해 보면, 피고가 원고 주장의 필요 경비 중 증빙이 없거나 성질상 필요경비로 산입할 수 없는 것을 가려내어 위와 같이 허위이거나 신빙성이 없음을 상당 정도로 증명하였다고 봄이 상당하므로, 이제는 원고가 위 각 필요경비가 실제로 업무와 관련하여 지출되었음을 증명할 입증의 필요가 있다.

(B) However, according to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, each of the above evidence Nos. 5, 6, 25, 27, 33, and 34 is a document stating or arranging the statement, etc. of the plaintiff himself or the staff of the hospital of this case. Each of the evidence Nos. 16, 17 (including all of the numbers) constitutes a document which is merely a written disbursement resolution prepared by the hospital of this case or is not relevant to the operation of the hospital of this case (38). Each of the above evidence Nos. 15-1, 2, and 18 through 20 (one-day cash delivery) was merely a document which is not relevant to the operation of the hospital of this case. Since the defendant submitted by the plaintiff at the time of the tax investigation of this case No. 1-C, the defendant presented most of the documents consistent with the above documents and the necessary expenses reported by the plaintiff, and it cannot be acknowledged that the plaintiff's above evidence Nos. 15-1, 22, 18 through 200 were insufficient to acknowledge the above evidence No. 4 of this case's evidence.

Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff to be dismissed in part.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the disposition of this case is lawful, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just and there is no ground for appeal of the plaintiff, and it is dismissed as per Disposition.