(영문) 부산고등법원 2018. 10. 19. 선고 2018누22005 판결횡령행위 당시부터 회수를 전제하지 않은 것으로 볼 수 없는 특별한 사정이 있다고 볼 수 없음[국승]
Busan District Court Decision 2018Guhap20055 ( October 21, 2018)
It cannot be deemed that there are any special circumstances that cannot be viewed as not premised on recovery from the time of embezzlement.
(1) It is difficult to deem that there are special circumstances, such as where the intent of the representative director, etc. is identical to the intent of the legal entity or where the economic interests of the legal entity are in fact inconsistent with the representative director, etc., and it cannot be deemed that there is no presumption of recovery from the time
Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act
2018Nu2205 Revocation of Disposition rejecting a request for adjustment of earned income tax
○○○○○○○
Doegi Tax Director
Busan District Court Decision 2018Guhap20055 Decided 21, 2016
2018.21
October 19, 2018
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition of 855,93,525 won against the plaintiff on May 16, 2017 shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The grounds for appeal asserted by the Plaintiff do not differ significantly from the argument in the first instance trial. In other words, in light of the actual status of the Plaintiff △△△△△, the principal agent of the embezzlement of the instant income disposition amount, the degree of control over the Plaintiff corporation, the circumstances leading to embezzlement, and the measures taken by the Plaintiff corporation after embezzlement, etc., it is difficult to view that the intention of the Kim △△△△△△△△△△△ is identical to the intent of the Plaintiff corporation, or that the economic interests of the Kim △△△△△△△△ and the Plaintiff corporation are in fact identical to the intent of the Plaintiff corporation, and thus,
However, even if the circumstances under which the Plaintiff emphasizes again at the trial and the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 17 through 22 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) submitted in addition, were reviewed again, the first instance court determined that the first instance court’s determination that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any special circumstance, which cannot be deemed as not premised on the recovery from the time when he embezzled the amount of the disposition of this case, by taking account of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, is justifiable.
Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, except where it is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's above assertion or where it rejected all the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 17 through 22, which are difficult to believe. Thus, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
The text cites it as it is.
2. Conclusion
Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be delivered with this conclusion.
Since the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate, it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.