2. All of the claims filed against the Defendants on the Plaintiff ○○○○○ Round Round Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

3. 소송비용 중 원고 AAA과 피고 @@세무서장 사이에 생긴 부분은 피고 @@세무서장이 부담하고, 원고 주식회사 ○○○○인터내셔날과 피고들 사이에 생긴 부분은 원고 주식회사 ○○○○인터내셔날이 부담한다.

Cheong-gu Office

주문 제1항 및 피고 @@세무서장이 2016. 1. 4. 원고 주식회사 ○○○○인터내셔날에게 한 2011년 법인세 2,990,720원(가산세 포함), 2012년 법인세 1,775,340원(가산세 포함)의 부과처분을 모두 취소한다. 피고 ○○지방국세청장이 2016. 1. 4. 원고 주식회사 ○○○○인터내셔날에게 한 [별지1] 소득금액변동통지내역 기재 각 소득금액변동통지를 모두 취소한다.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff AA is the representative director of Plaintiff ○○○○○ Rour (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) and the Plaintiff Company is a company that is engaged in clothing export business, etc., and major customers are ○○○ ○○○○○ (the Plaintiff’s husband, who is the Plaintiff AAB) as a large clothes company in Japan, whose representative is chi○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ (the Plaintiff’s husband, who is the Plaintiff AAB’s husband).

B. On February 13, 2012, Plaintiff AA opened a borrowed-name account in the name of CCC (the Plaintiff’s type as the husband of Plaintiff AA or DDD, and the Plaintiff’s husband’s residence in GGG), EE, and FF at the location of Manba Bank, a main trading bank. Each account was deposited with money as indicated below [Attachment 1].

다. 피고 @@세무서장은 각 차명계좌에 입금된 1,972,010,549원을 원고 AAA이 CCC으로부터 증여받은 것이라고 보아, 2016. 1. 6. 원고 AAA에게 2012년 증여세 999,063,240원(가산세 포함)의 부과처분을 하였다(이하 '이 사건 증여세 부과처분'이라 한다).

라. 한편, 피고 @@세무서장은 원고 회사가 2011 귀속 사업연도부터 2013 귀속 사업연도까지 법인세 계산시 여비교통비, 견본비, 소모품비・복리후생비로 손금으로 처리한 내역 중 [별지2] 손금 부인 내역 기재 74,056,715원이 원고 AAA이 사적으로 사용한 비용이라고 보아 원고 AAA에게 상여처분하고, 2016. 1. 4. 원고 회사에 2011년 법인세 2,990,720원(가산세 포함), 2012년 법인세 1,775,340원(가산세 포함)의 부과처분을 하고(이하 '이 사건 각 법인세 부과처분'이라 한다), 피고 ○○지방국세청장은 2016. 1. 4. 원고 회사에 [별지1] 소득금액변동통지내역 기재와 같이 소득금액변동통지를 하였다(이하 '이 사건 각 소득금액변동통지'라 한다).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The imposition of gift tax of this case

① 528,010,549 won deposited in the account in the name of CCC is merely the property owned by Plaintiff AA and not donated by CCC, with the amount deposited from the foreign currency account of Plaintiff AA ($ 468,714.43, USD 2,722.88, US$).

② On September 8, 1999, 1,444,00,000 won deposited in the accounts in the name of EE and FF, the employee JJ received the Plaintiff Company’s export price of KRW 130,000,000 (Korean Won KRW 1,400,000) from the Plaintiff Company in Japan, and escaped to GG, and it was seized from the local airport by Plaintiff AA’s recovery through a trial and received management from the CCC residing in the Republic of Korea on February 3, 2012. The Plaintiff Company treated the above amount as the property owned by the Plaintiff Company, and thus, did not receive a donation from CCC.

③ Therefore, the imposition of gift tax in this case, which deemed that Plaintiff AA donated each of the above money by CCC, was unlawful.

D. Disposition of each of the instant corporate tax and notice of changes in each of the instant income amounts

(1) Among the details stated in [Attachment 2], travel expenses and transportation expenses are aviation fees incurred by Plaintiff AA or Japanese customer employees visiting HH in connection with the Plaintiff Company’s business, which are not expenses used for private purposes, but expenses paid for the Plaintiff Company’s business needs.

2. Of the description stated in [Attachment 2], since the sample cost is a large number of clothes that prevailed in HH in Japan, the Plaintiff AA’s family residing in the country is allowed to use the credit card in purchasing the sample, and since the sample is actually ordered to be sold on the website in Japan, it is not used for private purposes, but for expenses that are disbursed as a result of the Plaintiff Company’s business needs.

③ Therefore, the imposition of each corporate tax of this case and the notice of change in the amount of each income of this case, which considered the details of the [Attachment 2] as private use costs by Plaintiff AA, is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) The imposition of gift tax of this case

① [표1] 기재 금원 중 CCC 명의 계좌에 입금된 528,010,549원 부분에 관하여 본다. 갑 제10 내지 17호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고 AAA 명의의 외화계좌에서 2012. 2. 13. 09:17경 미화 468,714.43달러(원화로 환산시 524,960,161원)가 인출되고 같은 날 09:26경 GGG화 2,722.88달러(원화로 환산시 3,050,388원)가 인출된 사실, CCC 명의 계좌로 같은 날 09:33경 562,408,502원이 입금된 사실, 피고 @@세무서장이 원고 AAA이 CCC으로부터 증여받은 것이라고 본 금액은 그중 528,010,549원이고, 위 금액은 위 각 외화의 원화 환산 금액 합계(528,010,549원 = 524,960,161원 + 3,050,388원)와 일치하는 사실이 각 인정된다. 이에 따르면 위 528,010,549원은 원고 AAA 명의의 외화계좌에서 인출된 것으로 보일 뿐이고, 달리 원고 AAA이 위 금원을 CCC으로부터 증여받았다는 점을 인정할 증거가 없다.

(2) Of the stated money in Table 1, the part 1,44,00,00 won deposited in the account in the name of EE, FF 2, the following facts are found: Gap 9, 18 through 30, 35 through 38, Eul 10, i.e., JJ on September 9, 199; Eul 2, 30,00,000,000 KRW 277,000,00 KRW 270,000,000 KRW 270,000,000 KRW 270,000,000 KRW 30,000,00 KRW 270,000,000 per annum 27,000,000 KRW 30,000,000,000 per annum 27,000,000 per annum 27,000.

피고 @@세무서장은, 원고 AAA이 원고 회사 수출대금 횡령액을 회수하였다면 원고 회사에 귀속시켜야 함에도 이를 원고 회사에 반환하지 않고 CCC에게 지급하여 GGG에서 CCC 개인의 사업자금과 금융 등에 투자하도록 하였으므로 위 금원이 원고 회사에서 사외 유출되어 그 실질지배권이 CCC에게 귀속되었고, CCC이 그 지배하에 위 금원을 약 12년간 운용하다가 [표1] 기재와 같이 원고 AAA에게 귀속시켰으므로, 원고 AAA이 [표1] 기재 금원을 CCC으로부터 증여받은 것으로 보아야 한다고 주장한다. 그러나 앞서 본 바와 같이 위 돈이 수출대금 횡령액을 회수한 것일 수 있다면 달리 CCC이 위 금원을 형성하였음을 증명할 자료가 없는 이 사건에서 약 12년간 운용하였다는 사정만으로는 위 1,444,000,000원이 CCC 소유의 자금이라고 할 수 없다.

③ Therefore, the instant gift tax assessment based on the premise that the Plaintiff AA received a donation from the CCC is unlawful.

D. Disposition of each of the instant corporate tax and notice of changes in each of the instant income amounts

The following facts or circumstances are acknowledged or known with Gap evidence 4 and Eul evidence 4 and 6 comprehensively based on the overall purport of pleadings, that is, the plaintiff company purchases clothes, etc. from mainly Do and retail enterprises in Dongdaemun-gu and engages in trade business in the form of exporting the whole quantity of them to Japan after partial termination of the contract. Therefore, it seems unnecessary for plaintiff AAAA to visit H in connection with the plaintiff company's work. The plaintiff's spouse 00 and 00 (OO, October 2004), Lee ○○ (O, October 2007) resided in HH from 2011 to 2013. The plaintiff AA used the plaintiff company's credit card at the cost of the plaintiff company's transportation and treatment with its family members, and accepted the contents used by the plaintiff company's 1 to 200's total sales expenses, welfare expenses, sample 2, and sample 1 to 200's sample 20's sample 20's sample 17.

3. Conclusion

그렇다면, 원고 AAA의 피고 @@세무서에 대한 청구는 이유 있으므로 이를 인용하고, 원고 회사의 피고들에 대한 청구는 이유 없어 이를 기각하기로 한다.