[법인세등부과처분취소][공1986.1.1.(767),62]
Where the head of the business office embezzled the proceeds from the sale of the company's property, the relationship of attribution of the proceeds from such transfer
In a case where a company ratified the transfer act of company's property by a shareholder of the company and an auditor and the head of the business office, even if he received the transfer price, the act of receiving the transfer price shall be deemed to have been effective on the company, and thus, the transfer price income shall be deemed to have accrued to the company, and it does not change its conclusion on the ground that he embezzled
Article 9(2) of the Corporate Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 82Nu518 Decided June 26, 1984
Constitutional Court Decision 201Hun-Ga146
Head of the Pakistan Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu747 delivered on June 20, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1 was the shareholder of the plaintiff company and the non-party 2 who was the head of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 6's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 6's non-party 1 and the non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 8's non-party 1 and the non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 8's non-party 1 and the non-party 6's non-party 1 and the non-party 6's non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6's non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 6's non-party 1 and the non-party 6's non-party 1 and the plaintiff 1.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)