Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap8499 ( October 20, 2011)

National Tax Service Review Corporation 2010-0058 ( December 27, 2010)

Since the plaintiff's omission in sales is recognized to have been disbursed as the company's operating fund, it shall be deemed that all of the amounts were retained in company.

Where a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite the fact of sales, the total amount omitted from sales shall be deemed leaked, and in such cases, the special circumstance that the omission in sales is not leaked, shall be proved by the corporation asserting such omission.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2011Nu39617 Notice of change in amount of income

XX Stock Company

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap8499 decided October 20, 2011

July 19, 2012

July 26, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On August 18, 2010, the defendant revoked the notification of change in income amount of 000 won by making the income earner as ParkA with respect to the plaintiff on August 18, 2010.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the amount of KRW 000,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00.

2. Determination

A. Where a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite a fact of sales, the total amount omitted from sales shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the account book. In such case, the special circumstance that the omission in sales was not leaked out of the account book shall be proved by the corporation asserting it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu630, May 14, 1993; 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002).

B. The Plaintiff’s remaining sales of the instant tax invoice 0 . The Plaintiff’s remaining sales of the instant tax invoice 0 .0 . The Plaintiff’s remaining sales of the instant tax invoice 0 .0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 20 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 206 0 . 0 0 06 206 . 2006 . 200 . 200 . 206 . 2000 . 200

Therefore, the disposition of this case, based on the premise that the Defendant was out of the company with an amount exceeding the amount of 000 won under the tax invoice of this case, is unlawful (no ground exists that the amount exceeding the amount of 000 won under the tax invoice of this case out of the amount of 000 won omitted from the company, which seems to have occurred due to the Defendant’s error of calculation).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous in finding that the plaintiff has sales claims against XX shopping, which are assets outside the country, but it is legitimate in concluding the revocation of the disposition of this case. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.