Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap30564, 2012.20

Seocho 2010west 1781 ( November 25, 2011)

An amount of money deposited into the account, the source of which is not known, shall be presumed to be the sales unless there are special circumstances.

Of the amount deposited into the Plaintiff’s corporate account, the representative director’s account, and the Plaintiff’s borrowed account, the amount not otherwise revealed shall be presumed to be the Plaintiff’s sales amount, barring any special circumstance.

2012Nu31719 Revocation of Corporate Tax Imposition Disposition, etc.

AAAA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap30564 Decided September 20, 2012

June 5, 2013

July 3, 2013

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. Each disposition on February 10, 2010, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on February 10, 2010, including the attached taxation, shall

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this court should be explained are as follows, and the "amount of the plaintiff's corporate account opened" in the 7th 13 to 8th 6th , and the 10th 5,6,8, and 14, and 18th 18th , shall be referred to as "amount of the plaintiff's corporate account opened", and except as added in the following paragraphs, the decision on the plaintiff's argument that is especially emphasized or unfolded by this court is as stated in the reasons in the judgment of the first instance, and shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment] Judgment on the second argument

According to the reasoning of the plaintiff's evidence No. 9, it is recognized that the plaintiff's personal company continues to conduct its business without being converted into the method of business transfer, and that OO was closed on December 28, 2007, that O was placed under the territory of O, and that 000 won was deposited in the account held under the name of O, from November 1, 2006 to June 15, 2007. However, considering the above evidence and evidence No. 78, and No. 8, it is difficult to recognize that OO was placed under the name of OO because it was difficult for OO to find that O was under the name of oO, and that 1, e.g., it was confirmed that O. was under the name of oO, but it was difficult for oO to find that O was under the name of oO's own account.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

(a) Amount of account transfer from credit card sales;

Of the money deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate account, the Plaintiff’s credit card sales amount of KRW 00,00,000, which was already paid by the Plaintiff, and the money should be excluded from the amount of this case. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s other corporate account was paid from the Plaintiff’s corporate account to the Plaintiff’s corporate account from the Plaintiff’s corporate account, the entire purport of the pleadings is acknowledged. However, the following circumstances are acknowledged as a whole based on the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited in the judgment as above, and the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate account was not reflected in ascertaining the Plaintiff’s omitted return amount at the time of the tax investigation. ② The Defendant did not support the Plaintiff’s corporate account as to the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate account after receiving explanatory materials from the Plaintiff as to the amount of the money deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate account at the time of the tax investigation. The Defendant did not clearly support the Plaintiff’s tax return amount (the Plaintiff also claimed that value-added tax was already paid in the above card sales amount, and did not clearly support.

B. Regarding personal loans of YellowOO

The plaintiff, and it is recommended that the amount of 00 won from among the money deposited into the YellowO account of 200 won, which was personally lent by YO, and that the above money should be excluded from the amount of this case because OO was leased to oO regardless of its business. According to the purport of the argument as a whole, the amount of 12.00 won and 00 won from OO's account under the name of 37thm, and the amount of o's account should be included in o's account under the name of o's account. The plaintiff's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's 20.

The plaintiff asserts that the amount of cash and cashier's checks, 000 won, and 000 won deposited through ATM, among the money deposited into YO account, should be excluded from the amount of this case since the plaintiff already reported to the plaintiff's sales, and the said money should be excluded from the amount of this case. The statement on the evidence No. 38, it is difficult to find that the plaintiff reported and paid the above 00 won including the sales amount, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently, and it is reasonable to view that the above 00 won should be included in the amount of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.