If a bonus has been disposed of to the representative because the place of use is not known, it is legitimate.

The bonus disposition against the plaintiff is legitimate on the ground that the plaintiff's birth completed the registration of transfer of ownership as to the commercial building, this commercial building is not appropriated as the assets of the non-party company, and the representative of the non-party company prepared a confirmation that the status of use cannot be known.

2010Guhap2878 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

XX

Head of the Tax Office

May 18, 2011

June 29, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s revocation of KRW 169,284,360 of global income tax for the year 2005 owed to the Plaintiff on October 13, 2009 and KRW 108,827,50 of global income tax for the year 2006, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 11, 1995 to February 19, 2009, the Plaintiff served as the representative member of the non-party XX limited partnership company (hereinafter “non-party limited partnership company”).

B. On June 17, 2005, the non-party company sold the same 00-000 square meters of land and 955 square meters of land (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "real estate of this case") to the non-party Kim A, ParkB, ParkB, Lee Dong-do (hereinafter referred to as the "the purchaser of this case") for the business year of 2008,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the National Tax Examination Committee on March 5, 2010 on November 11, 2009, but was dismissed on June 1, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

A. Nonparty Company received payment in lieu of receiving KRW 4.66 million out of the sales price of the instant real estate KRW 4 billion, as payment in lieu of receiving KRW 4.6 million, 207 and 307, which was newly constructed on the instant real estate surface. Therefore, it is unlawful for the Defendant to dispose of KRW 500 million as a bonus to the Plaintiff in the year 2005.

B. 200 million won, stating the provisional payment to the Plaintiff on the account books of the non-party company, was actually paid as a dividend to five investors. Thus, the Defendant’s disposal of KRW 200 million as a bonus to the Plaintiff in the year 2006 is unlawful.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010); Article 106(1)1 proviso of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22035, Feb. 18, 2010) provides that “where the corporate tax base is determined or revised, the outflow out of the amount included in gross income is clearly known but it is unclear to vest in the representative, it shall be deemed that the amount included in gross income is reverted to the representative.” Such representative standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing being a bonus for a representative to prevent unfair acts under tax law. Therefore, in this case, the representative is obligated to pay Gap's income tax regardless of whether it actually reverts to himself/herself unless it clearly proves the amount included in gross income (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da.

B. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2. A

In light of the following circumstances: (i) the instant purchaser, on July 1, 2006, who did not use the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4, and Nos. 400,000,000 won, based on the overall purport of the pleading Nos. 4; (ii) the Plaintiff’s 700,000,000 won, based on the following facts; (iii) the Plaintiff’s 2-2,000,000,000 won on the north-gu, 00,000,000,000,000 won; (iv) the Plaintiff’s 70,000,000 won on the real property; and (v) the Plaintiff’s 70,000,000 won on the real property; and (v) the Plaintiff’s 2,707,000,000 won on the real property’s 407,000,00 won on the real property.

C. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2.B.

The plaintiff asserted that the non-party company paid KRW 200 million to 5 shareholders, not the amount of provisional payment to the plaintiff on the account book, but actually paid KRW 200 million to 5 shareholders. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the records of evidence No. 6 alone are false. According to the records of the non-party company and the evidence mentioned above, the non-party company paid KRW 280 million to the plaintiff as bonus and received KRW 200 million as the repayment of provisional payment to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.