장부상 소외회사의 대여금에 대한 이자수입을 소외회사의 대표에 대한 이자수입으로 잘못 계상한 경우 익금산입하여서는 아니됨[국패]
Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap29250 ( October 01, 2012)
Cho High Court Decision 2010No4001 (Law No. 106,08)
In the account book, the interest income on the loans of the non-party company shall not be included in the calculation of earnings if it is mistakenly calculated as interest income on the representative of the non
(1) It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff Company received 24 million won as interest by lending funds to the Nonparty Company and received 24 million won as interest, and then erroneously appropriated only 12 million won as interest interest on the loan to the representative of the Nonparty Company. Therefore, it shall not be deemed as an omission in reporting interest income in the calculation of gross income.
Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act
2012Nu6119 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax, etc.
XX Co., Ltd
head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap29250 decided February 1, 2012
June 22, 2012
August 17, 2012
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of corporate tax for the year 2007 against the Plaintiff on September 8, 2010, and the imposition of KRW 000 of corporate tax for the year 2007, and the disposition of exceeding KRW 000 of the notice of change in the amount of income for the year 2006, shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.
1. Scope of the judgment of this court;
On September 8, 2010, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 000 for the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing corporate tax”) and the part exceeding KRW 000 of the notice of change in income amount of KRW 00 for Park Park in 2006 (hereinafter “the notice of change in income amount”) against the Plaintiff. The court of first instance accepted part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax of this case and dismissed the remainder and the claim for revocation of the notice of change in income amount. The Plaintiff appealed to the above cited part without filing an appeal. Accordingly, the subject of the judgment of the court is limited to the above cited part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax of this case.
2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reason for this decision is the same as the description of the reason corresponding to the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the subject of the above adjudication. It shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the
3. Conclusion
Thus, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the corporate tax disposition of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is with this conclusion, and the defendant'