logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2012. 4. 13. 선고 2009두5510 판결
[소득금액변동통지처분취소][공2012상,809]
Main Issues

In relation to the tax base of corporate tax, in cases where the tax authority corrected the disposition of income to the other party to the disposition of income of a corporation at the same time and at the same time reduced the amount of the disposition of income as a whole, whether the corporation has a benefit in lawsuit seeking the revocation

Summary of Judgment

When a corporation returns the tax base of corporate tax, if the amount of income received by the corporation as a dividend, bonus or other income is deemed to have been paid by the corporation to the other party to the disposition of income on the date on which the tax base is reported, and the liability to pay the income tax withheld at that time is established and confirmed. After that, in the case where the tax authorities correct the disposition of income to the other party ex officio and at the same time reduces the amount of income as a whole as a result of the increase in some items and the reduction in other items, the notice of the change in the amount of income does

[Reference Provisions]

Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8831 of Dec. 31, 2007), Article 106 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19891 of Feb. 28, 2007), Article 127 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 814 of Dec. 30, 2006), Article 192 (3) (current deleted), Article 21 (2) and Article 22 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007)

Plaintiff-Appellant

Limited-liability Company National Highway Corporation (Attorney Cho Jae-han, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant-Appellee

Busan Director of Regional Tax Office

Judgment of the lower court

Busan High Court Decision 2008Nu2606 decided March 20, 2009

Text

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8831 of Dec. 31, 2007), Article 106 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19891 of Feb. 28, 2007), Article 127 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 814 of Dec. 30, 2006), Article 192 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008), Articles 21 (2) and 22 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007), where a corporation reports the tax base of corporate tax on dividends, other income, and a corporation makes ex officio a tax return on such income amount to the other party, and there is no difference in the amount of income tax after such tax return.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the plaintiff filed a revised return on the tax base and amount of corporate tax for the business year 2003 to the director of the Busan District Tax Office on April 8, 2005, and disposed of it as bonus to the non-party representative director at the time of the inclusion of the revised return on the tax base and amount of corporate tax for the business year 6,512,792,610 won as well as the amount of income as a bonus to the non-party representative director at that time. After that, the defendant deducteds KRW 5,408,417,702, which was confirmed to have been used as expenses for acquiring the plaintiff's land and building, from KRW 6,51,611 in addition to KRW 32,451,611 in addition to the amount of income omitted from the newly discovered lease, and only KRW 1,136,826,519 as bonus to the non-party.

Examining these facts in light of the aforementioned provisions and legal principles, the disposition of income and the notice of change in the amount of income of this case ex officio by the Defendant reduces the amount of the disposition of income of this case as a whole, and thus, the Plaintiff does not have any interest in seeking revocation of the notice of change in the amount of income of this case. Therefore, there is no interest in the lawsuit of

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is inappropriate, it is justified in the conclusion that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)

arrow