납세의무자가 입증활동을 하지 않고 있는 필요경비에 대해서는 부존재의 추정을 용인하여 납세의무자에게 입증책임이 있음[국승]
Suwon District Court-2015-Guhap-60625 ( March 21, 2017)
Cho-2014-China-487 ( October 27, 2014)
The taxpayer bears the burden of proving the taxpayer by allowing the presumption of non-existence on the necessary expenses which the taxpayer does not perform the burden of proof.
The evidence presented by the taxpayer alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the taxpayer again lent the corporate loan to the representative, and to recognize that the representative has borrowed the funds in his name.
Articles 15 and 19 (Scope of Gross Income) of the Corporate Tax Act
2017Nu42509 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.
○○○○ Agricultural Partnership
○ Head of tax office
Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap60625 Decided March 21, 2017
August 25, 2017
September 29, 2017
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 each disposition listed in the list in attached Form 1, as against the plaintiff on April 1, 2013 shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;
The reason for this judgment is as follows, except for the revision of part of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance as follows. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The following shall be added to the lower part of the lower part of 10 pages:
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in Evidence Nos. 1 through 5-5, evidence No. 4-2, evidence No. 11-2, evidence No. 12, evidence No. 13-2, and evidence No. 1, 2, and No. 16, the Plaintiff’s de facto manager: (a) borrowed money from 00, 00, 00, 000, 000, 000 to 2012 from 2010 to 2012; (b) the current status of the loan and the loan not appropriated in the Plaintiff’s corporate account books from 2010 to 2012; (c) the Plaintiff’s actual manager obtained an investment in the Plaintiff’s name or made an investment from 2010 to 300,000 to 300,0000 to 4.1; and (d) the amount of the loan repaid to the relevant creditors is insufficient to recognize the remainder of the loan after the Plaintiff’s submission of evidence.
2. Conclusion
Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.