beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2012. 05. 23. 선고 2011누39624 판결

실질적 경영자 등이 법인의 자금을 유용하는 행위는 그 지출로 이미 사외유출에 해당함[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap10645 (Law No. 23, 2011)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du2271 ( December 30, 2010)

Title

Activities of substantial managers, etc. by appropriating the corporation's funds shall constitute the outflow of the company due to its expenditure.

Summary

(1) The act of a representative director, etc., who is the actual manager of a corporation, uses the corporation's funds for the purpose of using the corporation's funds is not done on the basis of the initial collection unless there are special circumstances, and thus the payment itself constitutes the outflow of the corporation, and the disposition of taxation is legitimate.

Cases

2011Nu39624 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

Plaintiff and appellant

XX Co., Ltd

Defendant, Appellant

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap10645 decided September 23, 2011

Conclusion of Pleadings

April 18, 2012

Imposition of Judgment

May 23, 2012

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's notification of change in income amount of 000 won in 2004, income amount of 0000 won in 2005, and income amount of 000 won in 2006 for the plaintiff on March 22, 2010 shall be revoked.

Reasons

The reasons for the judgment of this court are the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance that reads that the term 'Mala' that will be less than 3, 4, and 'MalaB' that will be considered 'MalaA' that will be 7, 4, and 6, as 'MalaCC'. The judgment of the court of first instance will be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.