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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 on January 3, 2014 against the Plaintiff on January 3, 2014 is revoked.

A. BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “instant company”) opened its business for the purpose of real estate consulting business on June 1, 2006 atCC DD 398-1, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a director of the instant company on May 15, 2007, and held 40% of the instant company’s stocks from 2007 to the closure of business.

B. The balance sheet attached to the report on the tax base and amount of corporate tax for the business year 2008 of the company of this case includes 000 won for short-term loans to shareholders, executives, and affiliated companies (hereinafter referred to as "the loan of this case"). The statement on the recognition of provisional payments and the statement on the confirmation of provisional payments include 00 won and the recognition of the plaintiff and 00 won.

C. The instant company closed ex officio as of June 30, 2010, and did not report and pay corporate tax and value-added tax since 2009, and was dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act on December 2, 2013.

D. On September 3, 2012, the director of the tax office who was audited by the director of the Central Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant that the instant company would dispose of the Plaintiff as dividends to the Plaintiff during the business year to which the date of closedown belongs, on the ground that the instant company failed to collect KRW 000 of the loan to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant loan”). Accordingly, on January 3, 2014, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the global income tax for the year 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 8, 2014. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 30, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff repaid 000 won to EE and four other companies of this case, and disbursed 000 won in cash to the company of this case from 2007 to 2009, while the company of this case deposited 000 won in the company of this case as general management expenses of the company of this case. When the company of this case purchases construction sites from the KF (CCD 398-1 et al., 4) from the KF, the company of this case bears an intermediate payment of 000 won by preparing a written statement of payment for the borrowed money. As such, the plaintiff bears 00 won in total of the company's expenses from 2007 to 2009, and the amount of the loan does not remain if it offsets the loan of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful under different premise.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the instant loans are included in the report on the tax base and amount of corporate tax in 2008 for short-term loans to shareholders, executives, and affiliated companies, and only the interests recognized by the Plaintiff are included in the report on the recognition of provisional payment and the statement on the settlement of accounts, so long as the instant loans are deemed loans to the Plaintiff, the instant loans are deemed loans to the Plaintiff. The instant company’s ex officio discontinuance of business without any business operation since it was dissolved and liquidated since 2009. Nevertheless, the instant loans were not collected from the Plaintiff as well as the instant disposition until they were issued, and the instant loans were finally reverted to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, in such a case, the Defendant must prove that the Plaintiff’s remaining amount of income is not offset against the Plaintiff’s dividends pursuant to Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010) and Article 10(1)16(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23589, Feb. 2, 2019, 2012).).

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

1) As to the assertion of repayment of loan

The plaintiff presented Gap evidence No. 10 (the account transaction details of the plaintiff's Nonghyup Bank) and then borrowed KRW 000 from EE and four other (HH, J, K, and LL) and disbursed KRW 000 to the total amount to be borne by the company of this case from 2006 to 2010, which shall be treated as the loans of the company of this case and offset against the loan of this case against the plaintiff.

However, even according to the above evidence No. 10, the plaintiff borrowed the above amount from the above EE and four other persons, or repaid the above amount of KRW 000 to the cost to be borne by the company of this case [it is not recognized that there is no specification of transactions between J and LL under the above No. 8 of the No. 10 of the No. 10 of the No. 10 of the No. 10 of the No. 10 of the No. 1, and even based on the statement of No. 8 of the No. 8 of the above No. 10 of the No. 10 of the No. 1

2) As to the assertion regarding the disbursement of general management expenses and cash deposit

A) Based on the following table, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff spent a total of 000 won for the general management expenses of the instant company, and submitted evidentiary materials with respect to this, such as a real estate sales contract concluded by the instant company with the prop, a written consent to the application for approval of the pertinent real estate business, data on the payment of wages to employees in 2008 and 5 years 2009, a daily labor expense ledger from July 2007 to December 2007, the Plaintiff’s credit card use expense statement [including each of the numbers, if any)] (the following table is omitted).

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged in Eul evidence 7, namely, MM, N, and PP appears to be the plaintiff's children in light of the overall purport of pleading, namely, the payment date and amount of wages, and only one employee of the company of this case was listed in the report on the payment of Class A earned income in 2008 of the company of this case, it is difficult to find that the actual above person was employed as employee of the company of this case and paid wages. Although the plaintiff asserted that the employee's food, oil, accommodation, telephone expenses, and consumption expenses were used as the plaintiff's credit card, it is insufficient to find that the credit card use payment statement alone was used for the expenses of the company of this case, not for personal use. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to have occurred the expenses of the company of this case. Even if the above amount was disbursed for the company's expenses, if it is difficult to find that the plaintiff's expenses were paid for the account of this case or the credit card use expenses of this case, it can not be viewed as management expenses of the company of this case.

B) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that it deposited KRW 000 in cash in the instant company from March 2007 to March 2009 and that according to the respective statements of evidence Nos. 9 to 11, and 14, the fact that the amount equivalent to the above amount was transferred from March 12, 2007 to the account of the instant company from March 17, 2009 to the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff is recognized. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff deposited the above amount in lieu of the expenses that the instant company should incur, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3) As to the assertion on part payment of construction sites

원고는, 이 사건 회사가 ㈜FF(이하 'FF'라 한다)로부터 건설용지(CC시 DD동 398-1 외 4필지)를 매입하는 과정에서 계약금 및 중도금(합계 000원)을 소외 GG가 대납하였고, 원고가 GG에게 위 차용금에 대한 지불각서를 작성해 주었는데, 위 매매계약이 해지되면서 원고가 GG에게 지불할 000원(이자 상당액 000원 포함)의 채무가 남아 있고, 이 중 중도금 000원을 이 사건 회사에 대한 채권으로 하여 이 사건 대여금과 상계하여야 한다고 주장하면서 이에 대한 입증자료로서, QQ가 ㈜BB를 대리하여 지불한 금액으로 차용한 금액인 000원을 원고가 2007. 9. 20.까지 변제할 것을 각서한다는 내용의 지불각서(갑 제15호증의 1), FF가 2007. 3. 21. 000원을 위 토지의 계약금으로 수령하였다는 내용의 영수증, FF가 '주식회사 BB(000000-000000)'를 수신인으로 하여 발송한 내용증명[잔금미지급을 이유로 위 토지에 대한 매매계약을 해지하고 매수인 ㈜BB(000000-000000)이 기지급한 계약금은 FF에게 귀속된다는 내용]을 제출하였다.

4) However, the sales contract for the above land entered into between the company and F does not have been submitted, and the Bank of Bankruptcy, which is the receiver of the above content certification, shall be the address (O○○○○-dong 229-13, 229-13, R), representative director (R), corporate registration number (R000-0000) of this case is completely different from that of the company of this case ( Address ○○○○ also Da-dong 398-1, representative director, corporate registration number of the plaintiff *******************). According to the above payment statement and receipt, it is deemed that there is a separate company like the company of this case. The above "B" merely stated the phrase "multi-family housing, BB representative director of the Co., Ltd.", and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above "B" is insufficient to recognize the part payment contract of this case for 00 won by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.