법인의 수입을 대표자 명의 계좌로 수취, 법인세 과소신고 및 장부상 허위기장 한 행위에 대한 법인세 부과처분의 부과제척기간은 10년임[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap51862 (23 August 2013)
The exclusion period for imposition of corporate tax on the receipt of the income of a corporation with the account in the name of the representative, underreporting the corporate tax and false entry in the account book shall be ten years.
(1) The exclusion period of imposition of the corporate tax of this case is 10 years since the plaintiffs committed fraudulent means or other unlawful acts, and the defendants made the disposition within the exclusion period of imposition of the corporate tax of this case is valid since they received corporate income in the name of representative account and intentionally concealed the amount of revenue, and filed a false entry in the account book with the failure to impose and collect the corporate tax of this case.
Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes Exclusion Period for National Tax Imposition
2013-Nu-47049 Action for nullification of a disposition of imposition of corporate tax, etc.
AA
○ Head of tax office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap51862 decided October 23, 2013
June 18, 2014
July 23, 2014
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. Defendant ○○○ Head of the tax office confirmed that the imposition of KRW 487,990,910 of the corporate tax for the year 2006, on March 16, 2012, on Plaintiff ○○○○○ Co., Ltd., and the imposition of KRW 372,064,060 of the global income tax for the year 2006, rendered against Plaintiff A on April 24, 2012, both of the imposition of KRW 372,06,060, imposed on Plaintiff 206.
1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance
The reasoning of this court’s judgment is as follows: (a) the dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is to add the judgment in the following paragraphs; and (b) the reasoning of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance; and (c) the relevant part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation
○ 6th " March 16, 2012" shall be construed as " March 16, 2012 (the duty payment notice appears to have been served on April 6, 2012)".
○ The relevant Acts and subordinate statutes of the end of this judgment shall be added.
2. Additional determination
In light of the fact that the key issue amount in this case was deposited by the non-party company’s market opening cost, and thus cannot be seen as the profit from the date of Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., the plaintiffs asserted that the fact that the key issue amount in this case was deposited in the Plaintiff AA account cannot be deemed to have evaded national taxes by fraud or other unlawful act.
However, various circumstances in the first instance trial, including the above facts and evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 10 through 13, and the result of the plaintiff's newspaper No. 1 (part) were revealed. The key issue amount of this case deposited through the plaintiff's account No. 19 times from the non-party company other than the plaintiff's claim for damages, which exceeds three times the amount of reported business year No. 2006, and in relation to this case, the plaintiff No. 2 stated that the non-party No. 3's act was related to the number of industrial gambling sites imported from the non-party company for the purpose of mediating the supply and demand of the plaintiff No. 1, and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff No. 2's act was not subject to the plaintiff No. 6's act of tax evasion by the non-party No. 1, and it was not subject to the plaintiff No. 2's new taxation disposition for the purpose of this case's transfer of money to the non-party No. 2's account book for the purpose of this case No. 201.
3. Conclusion
The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.