46 46 46 46 46 46 48

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 22, 2001, the Plaintiff was a corporation established on June 2, 2001 for the purpose of running the service advertising planning business, and received three copies of the processing tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as the “tax invoice of this case”) equivalent to the total value of 209,85,728 won (the total value of the value-added tax added to the supply value is 230,841,30 won) from △△ corporation (hereinafter referred to as “non-party corporation”) from January 1, 2006 to June 30 of the same year, and filed a tax return for the business year 2006 by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the total value-added tax amount.

B. On April 16, 200 through April 29, 2009, the Defendant confirmed that the instant tax invoice was a processed tax invoice issued without real transactions, and deducted the input tax amount deducted at the time of filing a return of the value-added tax, and then deducted the supply amount included in deductible expenses at the time of filing a return of the corporate tax, and then disposed of 16,780,30 won paid to ChoB as the purchase price of the instant tax invoice from 230,841,300 won to 16,780,300 won paid as the purchase price of the instant tax invoice, and disposed of 214,061,00 won as the bonus as the representative, and then notified the Plaintiff of the change in the income amount of 214,061,000 won (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 14, 2009 on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on February 23, 2010.

[Ground for Recognition: there is no dispute, as described in Gap evidence 1, 4, and evidence 1, 2, 2, and 3, respectively, and arguments

[Purpose of the whole]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

2,841,300 won, including 214,00,000 won as bonus, was transferred from the representative director's account to the Plaintiff's account from the representative director's account, immediately after the total amount of KRW 214,061,000,000, including the above KRW 214,061,000,000 from the representative director's account, was immediately recovered from the representative director's account to the Plaintiff's account. However, in order to extinguish the amount of KRW 114,795,529 by the representative director of the processed company, which was appropriated in the Plaintiff's provisional payment account, the above amount of KRW 22,00,000,000,000 as the representative director's provisional payment, cannot be deemed to have been leaked from the company's account in form. Therefore, the defendant's disposition in this case should be revoked.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from the Nonparty Company and expressed as if the Plaintiff remitted the Plaintiff’s account (Account Number 027-*******-04-01,30 won in total to the Nonparty Company’s account (Account Number 027-***********-02-028) from the Plaintiff’s Industrial Bank of Korea (the Plaintiff’s account number).

2) At the time of receiving the transfer of the sum of KRW 230,841,300 from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s representative director, as seen above, remitted the sum of KRW 220,000 to the Plaintiff’s above Bank’s account, and appropriated it as offset against the provisional payment by the representative’s provisional payment on the bank’s account, or appropriated it as the representative on the bank’s account.

3) Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s provisional payment account of KRW 374,901,224 as of the end of December 2005, the remainder of the paid-in capital for the representative director UA was paid to UA as of January 20, 2006, and thereafter, the representative director paid KRW 114,795,529 to UA on January 20, 2006, and the representative director’s provisional payment of KRW 260,795,529 in aggregate was paid to UA and KRW 342,150,03 in aggregate. The remainder of the paid-in capital as of the end of the same year came to reach KRW 293,546,720.

4) Furthermore, as of June 2006, the Plaintiff’s provisional payment account of KRW 452,971,259 was 452,97,259,000,000,000 won, including the above KRW 140 million + KRW 40 million + KRW 70,000,000,000 as of the end of July of the same year, and collected KRW 250,971,259,000,000 as of the end of the same year, and collected KRW 62,00,000 as of August of the same year, and collected KRW 62,00,000,000,000 as of the end of the same year, and collected KRW 61,971,259,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s representative director’s account of KRW 468,60,000,00 as of the date of the same year.

[Grounds for Recognition: The absence of dispute, the purport of Gap evidence 2, 3, 5 through 8, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 3, Eul evidence 2-1 through 7

D. Determination

1) According to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8141 of Dec. 30, 2006) and Article 106(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19891 of Feb. 28, 2007), if it is clear that the amount of inclusion in the calculation of income subject to taxation by appropriating the expenses for the processing of the corporation was leaked out of the company, the tax authority shall dispose of the income through bonus, dividend, and other outflow from the company according to the person to whom the expenses belong, barring any special circumstance, in case where the corporation appropriates the processing expenses in its account book, the corporation's income equivalent to the processing expenses shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the company. In this case, the special circumstance that the total amount of the processing expenses is not leaked out of the company's account, should be proved by the corporation's assertion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du3726, Jan. 11, 2002).

2) In the instant case, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from the non-party company for processing that does not have any real transaction and transferred the total amount of KRW 230,841,300 to the Plaintiff’s representative director’s account, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff ought to be deemed to have leaked KRW 214,061,00 (230,841,300 - 16,780,300) out of the above 230,841,300 won to the Plaintiff’s representative director’s account.

Furthermore, as to whether the above 214,061,00 won was leaked to the above 200 billion won or not, the plaintiff's temporary payment of KRW 114,795,529 was appropriated on January 206 on the plaintiff's provisional payment account; the representative director's transfer of KRW 22,00 million to the plaintiff from July 27, 2006 to August 11, 2006; however, the above facts are as follows: (i) since the above 200 billion was not yet known on the plaintiff's provisional payment account; (ii) the remaining amount of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was not yet counted as KRW 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was not yet counted as KRW 500,000,00,000.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.