In a case where the tax authority revised and notified corporate tax, etc. for 2003 and the value-added tax for 2003, reflecting the processed purchase amount and the omitted sales amount of Gap corporation, and Gap corporation's shareholder Eul was in arrears and imposed corporate tax for 2003 and the value-added tax for 2003, the case holding that the judgment below was justified in the imposition of corporate tax and the value-added tax for 2003 on the ground that Gap corporation's representative Byung among the sales amount originally reported as included in the tax base for 2003 was found to have prepared false credit card sales slips, and the portion of the fraudulent sales which was final and conclusive for conviction was excluded from the tax base, on the ground that the processing purchase amount and the omitted sales amount were not included in the false sales amount, and thus, the disposition of imposition of corporate tax and the

Article 39 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010); Articles 66 and 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010); Articles 17(1) and 21(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010);

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dongdong Partners, Attorneys Kim Han-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu6686 decided July 26, 201

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff regarding the imposition disposition of corporate tax and additional dues for the business year 2003, the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2003, and the demand for payment of additional dues is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Plaintiff’

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first and third grounds for appeal

The gist of this part of the grounds of appeal is that all sales and purchase by the non-party company are false, and the plaintiff is merely a nominal shareholder of the non-party company. This is merely a dispute over the deliberation of evidence or fact-finding by the court below and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Even if examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

A. By citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the non-party company reported and paid the above 1 and 2 value-added tax for the 2003 years 201 and 2. The defendant, on December 14, 2007, calculated the processed purchase amount of the non-party company 380,459,00, 20320, 120, 337,000) and the non-party company's non-party company's non-party 20, 206, 206, 30, 206, 206, 30, 206, 30, 206, 206, 30, 206, 206, 30, 206, 206, 30, 206, 300, 205, 206, 207, 206, 207, 2003, 206, 3.

B. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Judgment) and Gap evidence Nos. 10 (sales Place) duly adopted by the court below, first of all, the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2003 (including a demand for payment of additional dues) was not related to the crime in the final and conclusive judgment of conviction of the non-party, but substantial part of the crime that the non-party issued a false credit card sales slip from April 1, 2003 to June 2, 2003 upon which the judgment of conviction was rendered. The defendant's imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2003 against the non-party company and the disposition disposition of corporate tax for the business year 2003 are based on the corresponding records of the sales place of the non-party company, and its sales date, credit card types and sales amount, etc. are almost consistent with each other, except for the differences in the amount corresponding to

Therefore, the court below determined that the disposition imposing value-added tax for the first period of 2003 and the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year of 2003 on the ground that the above processed purchase amount and the omission in sales, which served as the basis for the disposition of this case, are not included in the false credit card sales, on the ground that the above processed purchase amount and the omission in sales, which were the basis for the disposition of this case, are not included in the false credit card sales by the final judgment of conviction. The court below deemed the additional tax portion as the "payment demanding disposition" but this part of the disposition imposing value-added tax for the first period of 2003 and the second taxable year of 203 as the "additional payment demanding disposition" was justified. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of value-added tax and corporate tax, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff regarding the imposition of corporate tax and additional dues for the business year 2003 and the imposition of value-added tax and additional dues for the first period of 2003 are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)