부외 경비로 제시한 상품중개수수료의 손금인정 사실판단[국승]
Determination of the fact that goods brokerage commission offered as expenses incurred outside the country is recognized as losses;
The testimony of a witness corresponding to the fact that he/she has paid as a product brokerage fee is not trustable, it is not sufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.
Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of KRW 9,062,200 against the plaintiff on April 1, 2006 shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgments of the first instance;
This Court's reasoning is as follows, with the exception of the "judgment 2-b of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance" as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2.Terpared parts
In a case where a taxpayer asserts that some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer are not actual expenses, the use of the expenses claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment are proven to the extent that the tax authority had a substantial degree of difficulty, and that there was another expense disbursement equivalent to the same amount while the taxpayer did not incur the expense according to the details of the report, the taxpayer should be deemed to have the burden of proving that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all the data, such as the account books and documentary evidence concerning the specific expense spending, as to the existence and amount of the reported expenses and other expenses (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2004Du14168, Jun. 10, 2005).
With respect to this case, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff filed a corporate tax return by adding the amount stated in the processing purchase tax invoice to deductible expenses, but requested the explanation of the expenses indicated in the above tax invoice, and argued that the amount at issue should be paid to ○○○ and ○○○○○ as intermediary commission, unlike the above tax invoice entry, should be included in deductible expenses. Accordingly, according to the Plaintiff’s or representative director’s testimony as witness of the first instance trial and part of ○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff’s above ○○ or ○○○○, 12,00,000 won on July 3, 2002, and 5,70,000 won on September 5, 200, and 31,000, 300,000,000 won on December 3, 11, 2002, and 204,300,300 won on each of them.
However, in light of the above facts, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to sell ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ to sell the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and paid the above amount of KRW 24,30,00,00 to the said ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 1,00,00 as evidence that the said ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 1,50,00, supra, and that the said ○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 1,50,000, supra, did not appear to have been distributed to the said ○○○○○○○○.
Therefore, the instant disposition that excluded the issue amount from deductible expenses is legitimate.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.