가공노무비 상당액이 사외유출된 것으로 인정됨[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap4469 ( August 27, 2010)
early 209west2983 ( October 28, 2009)
It is recognized that the amount equivalent to the processing labor cost is out of the company.
(As in the judgment of the court of first instance, even if there is no money leaked to a person other than the company directly in the process of appropriating processing labor costs, the representative director of the same amount already paid and disposed of as the basis for the above processing labor costs, without actually being refunded the provisional payment and advance payment to the representative director of the same amount already paid, and thus, the above processing labor costs were extinguished. Accordingly, the above processing labor costs
2010Nu35816 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.
XXNC Co., Ltd.
O Head of tax office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap4469 decided August 27, 2010
June 10, 201
July 1, 2011
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff, excluding the dismissed part of the lawsuit, shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of corporate tax of 199,077,497 on February 2, 2009 against the plaintiff, and the imposition of corporate tax of 2005 on the bonus income of 526,169,980 won for the year 2005 and the notice of changes in the amount of income for the bonus income of 1,923,680,00 won for the year 207 shall be revoked, respectively.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasons to be stated in this decision are as follows, except for the addition of the following contents between the 8th sentence of the first instance judgment and the 6th sentence of the second instance judgment (which seems to be reasonable) and the 8th sentence of the first instance judgment, and therefore, they are cited as the reasons for the first instance judgment.
[Supplementary Parts]
『㉳ 원고의 대표이사 정AA와 전무이사 박BB는, 법인에서 출금한 자금으로 회사 경비를 쓰고 애매한 것은 대표이사의 대여금으로 계상하였다가 노무비로 정리할 것을 박BB가 제안하고 정AA가 수락함으로써 실제 지급하지 않은 노무비를 가공으로 회계처리한 것이 맞다는 취지의 진술이 기재된 각 문답서에 직접 각자 서명, 무인한 사실이 있는 점(을 제5호증의 2, 3)』
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.