the amount reported to F, H, and GG, as an employee of the Plaintiff, shall be the amount reported to F, H, and G.

Part of the account transfer is a normal payment in cash, and there is no excessive appropriation.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (1) The date of signing on the certificate of receipt of sales allowance to the above employees.

2. The representative director of the plaintiff at the time of the investigation

Although it was judged that it was excessive because of the fact that the letter of confirmation was written to see the award, it was not excessive.

a simple signature and seal affixed on the statement and signed in narrow summary, and written confirmation of receipt

There is a possibility of inconsistency with the name of the plaintiff representative at the time of the investigation, and the certificate prepared by the plaintiff representative director at the time

Since it has been duly signed under the weak state and has no effect, the number of this case in the end

Since there is no excessive appropriation of the party, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Acquisition of each of the instant land in a state where a building is not settled on the ground.

each of the following subparagraphs without filing a report on the commencement of construction:

All land was sold.

2) The Plaintiff’s representative director II at the time of investigating the Plaintiff’s primary category of business

No crops cultivating business or the plaintiff has been engaged in agriculture from the opening date of the business (O. 00. 00) to the present date.

In order to operate real estate sales business and purchase farmland, the Plaintiff was established in the business year of 000.

The plaintiff purchased land and divided the parcel after performing civil engineering works, such as molding work, to sell it to several persons.

However, "I confirm that the corporate tax on the capital gains on non-business land has been omitted."

The content certificate was signed in writing.

3) As to the land of this case, civil engineering, infrastructure construction, and farmland measurement work was conducted;

Before the construction, the land was the first place before the construction. However, the Plaintiff was engaged in the construction by using heavy equipment to properly cut and dispose of the land of this case, and building a separate building on that ground.

14 times in total from 00.00 to 0.00.000.000 after acquisition, 14 times in total, from 00.00 to 00.00

(1) The farmland waterway Corporation and the farmland measurement Corporation for the land of this case

B, while making use of heavy equipment, the Plaintiff made a waterway on the D land of this case, and the land

A construction project to be filled up and arranged as flat and divided from 0.00 to 0.00.000.00

The land was transferred over 43 times, and the farmland waterway Corporation and the farmland measurement in the EE land of this case

A building is not constructed separately on the ground by making a waterway using heavy equipment while performing the construction work.

It was made in an undeveloped state and transferred thereafter.

4) The JJ’s representative director at the time of the Plaintiff’s tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff “Personnel F, GG,”

H Recognizing that the allowances for H have been excessively appropriated, in writing, a written confirmation

had been.

5) F around 00.000.00, F means the amount equivalent to the amount claimed by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff.

in 000, the document confirming that the commission and sales allowance were received shall be drawn up to the plaintiff.

I am.

on the date of withdrawal alleged by the Plaintiff to have paid in cash to F, as follows:

The amount equivalent to the amount of the plaintiff's assets shall be reduced to the plaintiff's branch, but no one shall be

There is no record as to whether it has been used as a name or not.

6) H H means the amount equivalent to the amount claimed by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff in 000.

A letter of confirmation that he received fees and sales allowances was prepared and presented to the plaintiff.

The amount of withdrawal as follows on the date of withdrawal claiming that the Plaintiff paid cash to H:

state that the same amount as such has been reduced in the plaintiff's branch of branch, but any person

There is no record as to whether it has been used in this title.

7) GG around October 000, 000, at the same amount as the amount claimed by the Plaintiff, fees and sales slips.

I prepared to the Plaintiff a written confirmation that the purchase price was received.

The amount of withdrawal and the Plaintiff as follows on the date of withdrawal alleged by the Plaintiff to have paid to GG:

state that the assets have been reduced in the opening of the branch of the branch of the branch, but is used for any purpose;

No record is recorded.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 7 and 9, and Decree

(2) The purport of the whole pleading

D. Determination

1) As to the instant land

A) Relevant legal principles

With respect to the interpretation of tax-related laws, the requirement for the imposition or the requirement for the reduction or exemption is denied.

Unless there are special circumstances, interpretation in accordance with the text of the law shall be extended or interpreted without reasonable grounds.

Interpretation shall not be permitted and, in particular, expressly preferential provisions among the provisions of reduction or exemption requirements.

It is also consistent with the principle of equity to strictly interpret it (Supreme Court Decision 2007.

10. 26. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du9884 Decided 26.

B) Determination

Article 55-2 (1) 3 of the Corporate Tax Act where a corporation transfers non-business land, the quantity thereof.

In principle, forest land shall be taxed on Do income, and forest land for non-business use under paragraph (2) of the same Article shall be

section 35(b)(3) of this title, however, that there is reasonable ground to believe that the

The scope of the forest with oil is excluded, and the scope is delegated to subordinate laws, but the scope is sought.

The Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance is not enacted. Paragraph (3) of the same Article does not have any unavoidable reason.

Sub-laws are delegated to the scope of forest land not deemed land for non-business use;

Article 46-2 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the provision of this case") is a case on the ground.

Land on which a stable is not settled and so constructed to be used for business purposes;

Public land (based on the date on which a report on commencement is submitted if the date of commencement is unclear) shall be non-project;

It shall not be regarded as land for use.

The following circumstances may be known in light of the purport of the entire pleading in the above facts of recognition:

In light of the legal principles, there are unavoidable reasons for "the land of this case" as provided in the provision of this case.

Since land not deemed land for non-business purposes cannot be seen as land for non-business purposes, this section of this case by the plaintiff

Sectoral argument is without merit.

① In principle, each of the instant lands is forest land or field and land for non-business use.

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that provides real estate consulting and brokerage services, and short-term acquisition of each of the instant land by acquiring it.

Since it was sold immediately after construction during the period of time, it was used as the plaintiff's office site.

shall be deemed a forest having reasonable grounds to believe that such forest is directly related to the business of the corporation.

(c) Where a corporation transfers land for non-business use, the real estate of the corporation to be taxed on capital gains;

The purpose is to prevent speculation, and the plaintiff was engaged in real estate consulting and brokerage business.

If all real estate owned by the plaintiff is considered as land for business, the purport of the above legislation is dismissed.

Manopoly arises.

② When the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, the Plaintiff did not have settled on the ground.

Therefore, land for non-business construction should be commenced to use the land of this case for business purpose.

(1) The business of the land owned by a corporation as described in paragraph (1) above.

If it is intended to be used for the purpose of use, such as the use for the office site of the corporation;

There must be direct relations with such person.

However, the plaintiff acquired the land of this case to use it for the business of the corporation

There is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had engaged in the short-term civil works, and the purchase price after the short-term civil works.

The sale of the instant land appears to have been made up to 3 times in payment.

Real estate sold to obtain marginal profits shall be deemed as real estate directly related to the business of the corporation.

It is difficult to do so.

③ The meaning of the phrase “the commencement of construction” as referred to in the instant provision is as follows.

‘Land on which a building is not settled' is limited to the commencement of construction by acquiring ‘land on which the building is not settled'.

Considering the fact, it is reasonable to view that the construction of the building was commenced. The plaintiff is the plaintiff.

the land of this case for a short period of time, after cutting off the land of this case with heavy equipment and making a stop;

sale of the land in this case, and it is assessed as "the commencement of construction of the building".

It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff commenced the construction of the building on the instant land.

(c)

2) As to the instant allowances

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as above, the instant allowances

There is any illegality in the disposition of this case included in gross income as it is deemed excessive.

It is difficult to see it.

① The Plaintiff’s financial data that have been withdrawn from the account held in the name of the Plaintiff alone are paid.

It is difficult to view that the claimed amount was actually paid to the employees.

2. A person who has a signature in a written confirmation of receipt of sales allowances submitted by the Plaintiff (Evidence No. 11-1, 2, and 3 of the A)

Staff FF, GG, and H’s writing signature and sales allowances (A evidence 10, 16-17 pages)

The signature of the seal affixed on the pen shall be inconsistent.

(3) A certain portion of transactions from taxpayers in the course of tax investigation by a tax authority.

(1) If a written confirmation has been prepared by the person who is a processing transaction, the author's intent;

specific facts due to forced preparation or lack of the content thereof, etc. against

Except in extenuating circumstances, such as that it is difficult to take it as supporting material for the confirmation, the evidence of the confirmation shall only be used.

It cannot be readily denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002).

However, the representative director J of the plaintiff's representative shall be subject to a tax investigation to the excessive extent of the allowances of this case.

In the letter of confirmation confirming that it has been made, the signature and seal has been affixed to the letter of confirmation, which is written by force against the J's will or specific due to lack of its contents, etc.

There is no evidence to acknowledge special circumstances, such as that it is difficult to use it as evidence to prove the facts.

④ Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s confirmation, confirmation, details of financial transactions, and share of FF, GG, and H

in fact the instant allowances, other than relocation, are paid to FF, GG, and H in return for work.

Specific data, such as a working log, a business income statement, and a statement of accounts, which can verify that they were;

In the absence of submission.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

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

The imposition of corporate tax of KRW 000 for the business year of 000 against the plaintiff on October 000 by the former defendant of the Gu office shall be revoked.

A. In around 000, the Plaintiff purchased each land (hereinafter referred to as “CC land of this case,” “D land of this case,” “E land of this case,” and “the aggregate of the above land” as a juristic person operating real estate consulting and brokerage business, and each land (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case”).

B. The Plaintiff acquired the instant D land by auction on 00.00.00, and transferred it by installments on 00.00.00 after purchasing the instant land on 00.00.00.00. After purchasing on 00.00, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land after performing civil engineering and foundation construction work. On 00.00, the Plaintiff purchased the instant EE land on 100.00, and transferred it on 00.00 after performing civil engineering and foundation construction work. The Plaintiff was planned and investigated by the commissioner of regional tax office in relation to real estate transactions on 00.00.0.00. The Defendant was planned and investigated by the commissioner of regional tax office on 00.0.0, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of corporate tax on the transfer income of the instant land on the following grounds that the Plaintiff did not report corporate tax on the transfer income of the instant land.

D. On the ground that some of the details of the Plaintiff’s payment of sales allowances, such as commission, were appropriated excessively to the employees as follows, the Defendant: (a) rendered a disposition to revise the corporate tax for the business year of 000 to KRW 000 on October 00, 00, along with the gains on transfer under the above paragraph (c) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the said claim was dismissed on October 00, 00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, u300 Gap Nos. 9, 10, 10 Eul Nos. 1 through 4, and 8 (where there are branch numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to each of the instant land

According to Article 55-2(3) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 92-11(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree, and Article 46-2(1)5 of the Enforcement Rule, land acquired on the ground and started for construction on the ground shall be excluded from land for non-business for two years from the date of acquisition.

The plaintiff can be seen as "the commencement of construction by performing civil engineering works and infrastructure works on the land of this case and EE." In the case of the DD land of this case, the farmland measurement works and farmland infrastructure works have been completed in order to cultivate crops, such as white seao, so each land of this case is land for business.

Therefore, the disposition of this case imposed on the transfer margin by deeming each land of this case as land for non-business use is unlawful.

2) Fees and sales allowances included in the calculation of the Defendant’s excessive appropriation of the allowances paid to employees (hereinafter “the fee”)