가공비용임이 인정되고 특별한 사정이 없는 한 사외유출로 보아야 하며, 특별한 사정의 입증책임은 원고에게 있음[국승]
Suwon District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-64563 ( October 29, 2017)
It is recognized that processing costs are processed costs, and unless there are special circumstances, they should be viewed as outflow from the company, and the burden of special circumstance exists
(As stated in the judgment of the court below), there is no evidence supporting that the legal plaintiff's purchase and operating expenses appropriated as deductible expenses are the processing expenses, and if it is acknowledged that it is processing expenses, it shall be deemed that it was out of the company, barring any special circumstances, and the burden of proof that it was not leaked to the other party is the plaintiff.
Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act
2017Nu44888 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax, etc.
AAAA
BB Director of the Tax Office
Suwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap64563 Decided March 29, 2017
August 30, 2017
October 18, 2017
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 imposition (including additional taxes) of corporate tax of 313,497,770 won for the business year 2009, corporate tax of 5,850,900 won for the business year 2011, corporate tax of 3,911,911, and corporate tax of 3,911,000 won for the business year 209, value-added tax of 36,853,970 won for the first period of 209, value-added tax of 84,297,07,070 won for the second period of 209, value-added tax of 18,357,420 won for the first period of 20, value-added tax of 2010, value-added tax of 205, value-added tax of 205, 207, 201, 208, 2016, 2010.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows. The plaintiff added or added part of the judgment of the first instance as follows, and the reasons for the decision of the first instance as well as addition of the judgment of the second instance as to the plaintiff's assertion that has been repeated in the trial are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, the meaning of terms used in this case is identical to the judgment of the first instance.
○ 4. [Attachment 2] Subsequent to the revised notice of value-added tax in Part 6 below (including each additional tax).
○○ 10,000,000 won for the first 10th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth 70,000 won.
○ 6th and 7th and 6th, “from the date of closing argument in this case, to the date of closing argument in this case,” shall be deemed “from the date of closing argument in this case, to the trial.”
Pursuant to Section 16-17 of the 8th page "The above amount of KRW 1,111,00,000 corresponding to most of the above amount", approximately KRW 1,100,000 from each deposit counterpart to KimCC's account, approximately 1,111,00,000, whichever is about the above amount is about 18's "A", and the "Entry of No. 2" in Section 18 is "No. 3-1 and No. 2".
2. Additional determination
The plaintiff asserts that 6.30 million won, which was used for the plaintiff's business purpose, i.e., labor cost or settlement of credit purchase amount, among the amount of disposal of income to KimCC, shall be deemed voluntarily collected in consideration of the purport of Article 106 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that it should be disposed of
However, according to the main sentence of Article 106 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, where a domestic corporation collects illegally released amount, such as omitting sales and processing expenses, within the period for filing a revised return under Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and files a report by including them in gross income as tax adjustment, the income can be disposed of as retained earnings. Even if the plaintiff actually used 630 million won out of the outflow amount as the plaintiff's personnel expenses or settlement of credit purchase amount for the plaintiff's operation, etc., as alleged, the plaintiff did not report it in the calculation of gross income by the tax adjustment, and thus, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted (limited to the case where the outflow amount was actually used for the corporation without reporting it as the tax adjustment
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.