2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

A. From October 11, 1995 to February 16, 2009, the Plaintiff served as the representative member of d fisheries limited partnership companies (hereinafter referred to as d fisheries limited partnership companies) engaging in the business of wholesale and brokerage of fishery products.

B. On June 17, 2005, D/D fishery transferred D/D d/C North Korea (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”) owned by D/D fishery to D/D d/D d/C d/C d/ D d/C d/ D d/C d/ D d/C d d/ D d/ D d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d.

C. From April 8, 2009 to April 24, 2009, the defendant confirmed that d fishery transferred the real estate of this case to 4 billion won even after transferring it to 4 billion won, and filed a false corporate tax return. ① When calculating the corporate income in 2005, the difference between the actual transfer price of the real estate of this case and the transfer price stated in the account book (hereinafter “the omitted amount of sale of real estate of this case”) was included in gross income of 1.3 billion won (hereinafter “in the calculation of the corporate income in this case”), the amount of 60 million won is as retained earnings, 200 million won as bonus for the plaintiff, 2.5 billion won as global income, 2.5 billion won as bonus for 200 billion won as bonus for the plaintiff, 2.6 billion won as global income tax for 208 billion won as global income, and 2.6 billion won as bonus for the plaintiff, 2.6 billion won as global income tax for 208 billion won as above.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on March 5, 2010 on November 11, 2009, but was dismissed on June 1, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2, 10, and 11-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since d fishery reserves KRW 460 million out of the omitted sales proceeds of the real estate in this case as outstanding bonds, instead of receiving the aforementioned money, d fishery buyers received the payment of Nos. 207 and 307 (hereinafter “Nos. 207 and 307”) from among the buildings newly constructed on the ground of the real estate in this case as substitute and hold them under title trust with the Plaintiff’s East-Bq, it is not a 460 million won out of the company. Of the omitted sales proceeds of the real estate in this case, d fishery was used for the payment of dividends or dividends to the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is unlawful that the Defendant disposed of KRW 50 million in the business year 2005 with the recognition of the Plaintiff.

2) The amount of KRW 200 million stated as the provisional collection amount against the Plaintiff on the books of D fishery is unrelated to the omitted sales amount of the instant real estate transfer proceeds. As such, the Defendant’s disposal of KRW 280 million in the year 2006 as the bonus against the Plaintiff in the year 2006 exceeds KRW 92 million paid to the Plaintiff in around 2006 is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) As to bonus disposition 500 million won for the year 2005

A) Where a corporation fails to record the transfer price in its account book even after transferring its assets, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the amount equivalent to the transfer price that has not been entered in the account book has been leaked out of the company, and where special circumstances exist to deem that it has not been leaked out of the company, the legal entity asserting it shall prove (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du2049, Dec. 21, 2006). In addition, Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106(1)1 proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provide that, in determining or correcting the corporate tax base, the outflow out of the amount included in the company's income is clearly deemed to have been reverted to the representative, but the amount of the transfer price is unclear. The representative standing system under the Corporate Tax Act provides that it is not based on the fact that such income has accrued to the representative, but it shall be deemed to have been a bonus to the representative without regard to the actual fact that can be recognized as such act in order to prevent an unfair act under the tax law.

B) Based on the above legal doctrine, the instant real estate was transferred to the instant purchaser on June 17, 2005 at KRW 4 billion, but the transfer value of the instant real estate was stated in the company’s account book as KRW 2.7 billion, and the fact that the transfer value was reported as KRW 2.7 billion at the time of filing a corporate tax return for the business year 2005 was as seen earlier. Thus, the omitted amount of the instant real estate transfer proceeds shall be deemed to have been out of the company, barring any special circumstance, and as long as the ownership of KRW 500 million is unclear, the Plaintiff, the representative member of the Port Fishery, as a member of the Port Fisheries, shall be subject to bonus disposition.

C) First, as alleged by the Plaintiff, D.D. owned KRW 4.60 million out of the omitted sales proceeds of the instant real estate transfer in around 2005, and held the instant commercial building Nos. 207 and 307 by means of title trust with the Plaintiff’s partner’s partner company, which was paid in lieu of the instant real estate transfer proceeds from the instant purchaser, and thus, it is difficult to examine whether the amount of KRW 4.60 million could not be viewed as the amount that was released from the company.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the Plaintiff’s testimony of Parky at the time of the first instance trial and the first instance trial, it is insufficient to recognize that Daehan had the outstanding claim amounting to KRW 4.60 million out of the omitted sales amount of the real estate transfer price at the time of 2005, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Rather, it can be recognized that DDR had already been released from the company at the time of not entering into the corporate book of DDR as at the time of 4.4, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21 through 23, and 3 through 5 (including each number), the testimony of the witnesses at the time of remand, the testimony of the witnesses at the time of the first instance trial and the trial witness at the time of the first instance trial, and the whole testimony and arguments, it can be recognized that DDR’s outstanding claim amounting to KRW 460 million,000,000 was already discharged from the company.

① In the course of transferring the instant real property, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract of 4 billion won in terms of the actual contract and 2.7 billion won in terms of the amount to be transferred for the purpose of a sales contract and a tax return, and also prepared a sales contract of 3.5 billion won in terms of the amount to be transferred. The reasons for preparing a sales contract of 3.5 billion won in terms of the amount to be transferred was for the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff, to divide the amount to be KRW 300 million in terms of dividends by four general partners with limited liability on June 20, 2006, including the Plaintiff, into dividends, 300 million in terms of limited liability tamp and ship j which became aware of the amount to be transferred, but the amount to be transferred was additionally paid to them by around January 209. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20139, Jun. 20, 206>

② The Plaintiff could not enter the accounts receivable of KRW 460 million in the corporate account book because it had been managed as assets outside the corporation. However, unless the account book was entered in the corporate account book, there is room for change in the status of outflow from the corporation at any time by the representative director, and thus, it should be more strict. The circumstance that only the proceeds of the sale of the instant real estate would have been aware of the existence of the accounts receivable of KRW 460,000,00 not impeding only the general partner with limited liability for d fisheries at the time when the proceeds of the sale of the instant real estate were entered in the corporate account book of d fishery. The reason why the account book was not entered in the corporate account book is not clear as to whether it would be intended for d fishery purposes in light of the above circumstances, and it is difficult to recognize that the control and management of d fishery as to the accounts receivable of KRW 460,000,000,

③ At the time of filing a tax return, the instant purchaser reported the acquisition price of the instant real estate as KRW 4 billion, and d fishery also prepared and delivered to the instant purchaser a deposit certificate that received KRW 4 billion from the instant purchaser.

④ As a result, the Plaintiff settled accounts by way of deducting KRW 200 million from the brokerage commission for Parkt while arranging the transfer of the instant real estate and acting for d fishery at the same time as one of the instant buyers, the Plaintiff did not take legal measures, such as seeking payment from June 10, 2005, which is the remaining payment date of the instant real estate, for about two years. However, on May 28, 2007, the Plaintiff received 202,02,300,000,000,000 won under the name of 37,70,000,000,000 won under the name of d fishery, which was owned by d fishery’s general partner, from June 10, 2005, and did not appear to have been subject to the registration of the transfer of the instant real estate under the name of 37,707,000,000 won under the name of d fishery company.

⑤ As the Plaintiff pointed out, it is difficult to recognize d fishery as the actual owner of d fishery of this case since May 25, 2007 to March 4, 2008 (if the actual owner of d fishery of this case is not d fishery of this case, the above amount falls under the amount of outflow from other outflow from the company), although the interest on the d fishery of this case was paid from August 24, 2007 to September 30, 2008.

⑥ Agg on April 2009, who was appointed as the representative member of d fishery as the Plaintiff’s successor, is the Defendant’s actual transfer value of the instant real estate, and “the actual transfer value of the instant real estate is KRW 4 billion. Of them, KRW 2.7 billion is used as corporate funds, and KRW 200 million was used as corporate funds after the provisional payment against the Plaintiff was deposited in the account collection of the provisional payment to the Plaintiff, and KRW 50 million is not known.” In addition, in the corporate book of d fishery, the instant commercial building Nos. 207 and 307 claimed to have been transferred as payment in kind to the Plaintiff until now is not counted as D fishery assets.

7) The evidence Nos. 11 and 14 (the expenditure and revenue of the directors, and the evidence No. 14), which appears to be a closed book of d fishery prepared around May 2009, are part of the evidence No. 11 and No. 14 (the evidence No. 14). The defendant denies the authenticity of the evidence No. 11 and No. 14, but the defendant denies the authenticity of the evidence No. 11 and No. 14 before the remand, according to the testimony of the witness Yangk of d fishery, the above document is deemed to have been made by the dispatchg, the representative member of d fishery, and the purchase by substitute, but it is stated that the person to whom it belongs, is not a d fishery company, "Plaintiff".

D) Next, as alleged by the Plaintiff, we examine whether KRW 40,00 has been used for the payment of dividends to the Si funds or members of d fisheries.

It is insufficient to recognize that there was a separate person to whom KRW 40,00,000 has been attributed from the bonus disposition for the year 2005, only the testimony of the witness of the trial court prior to the remand and the statement of evidence No. 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff cannot be aware of the place of use of KRW 40,00,000 from the preparatory document (Records No. 160) dated September 28, 2010, and even in the notice (Evidence No. 5-1) sent by the plaintiff to Jeonj, the part of KRW 40,00,00 among the bonus disposition for the year 205 is recognized).

E) Therefore, 50 million won out of the omission in sales of the instant real estate transfer proceeds was out of the company in 2005, and it shall be deemed that it was reverted to the Plaintiff, a representative member, due to its unclear attribution. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition imposing global income tax for 2005 on the same premise is lawful.

2) As to the bonus disposition for the year 2006, KRW 200 million

A) In order to be lawful in the imposition of income tax on the representative, etc. on the ground that the income out of the company was actually attributed to the representative, etc., unlike the case of the disposition of income which is deemed to have been paid as prescribed in the Corporate Tax Act, the tax authority should assert and prove the fact that the income out of the company was actually attributed to the representative, etc., and the type of such income, and where the person to whom the income out of the company was attributed was clearly identified, it cannot be presumed that it was actually attributed to the representative director, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du15300, May 12,

B) According to the evidence No. 5-1, No. 5-2, No. 4, No. 6-2, No. 7, and No. 18, 4-2, and No. 7 and No. 18, d fisheries held provisional payments each business year. In light of the fact that d fisheries held provisional payments each business year, d fisheries’s declaration of corporate tax in 2006 and d fisheries’s statement (B) on the recognition of provisional payments and the confirmation statement (B) as d fisheries’s “Plaintiff,” it can be acknowledged that 200 million won out of the omitted sales proceeds of the real estate transfer in the name of d fisheries deposit account and paid the Plaintiff’s provisional payments.

In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff’s holding of KRW 60 million out of the omitted sales of the real estate transfer proceeds of this case as dividends to its members, and 200 million out of the Plaintiff’s provisional payment of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which were not related to the omission of sales. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap’s evidence No. 5-1, No. 18-1, and No. 15-1, No. 15-6, the amount of dividends to its officers, which were the objective data written in No. 2006, were 70,000,000 won and 70,000,000 won and 80,000 won and 70,000,000 won and 70,000 won and 78,000,000 won and 70,000 won and 206,00.

C) Therefore, the Defendant’s imposition of global income tax for the year 2006 on the premise that the amount of KRW 200 million out of the sales omitted amount of the instant real estate transfer proceeds was reverted to the Plaintiff in 2006 is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims of this case are dismissed as it is without merit, and the first instance court's decision on the imposition disposition of 197,284,360 won of global income tax for 2005 and the revocation disposition of global income tax for 2006 is just in conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim extended in the first instance court prior to the remand are all dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.