Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap3026 (O4. 18)

(As with the judgment of the court of first instance), bonus disposal is lawful for the plaintiff as the plaintiff actually controls management, and it is not clear that the person to whom it belongs is.

The amount of the instant payment constitutes a case where it was leaked out of the company, but it is unclear who is the person to whom the instant payment occurred, and it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff actually controls the management of the corporation as an executive officer who is a shareholder, etc., and thus, the instant disposition that deemed the

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

2013Nu15325 Disposition of revocation of imposition of global income tax, etc.

OraA

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap30226 decided April 18, 2013

January 24, 2014

February 7, 2014

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of the global income tax for the Plaintiff on August 18, 201 and the local income tax for the year 2008 shall be revoked.

subsection (1)

"Request for revocation of imposition of global income tax in the judgment of the court of first instance" shall be revoked. "The imposition of global income tax on August 18, 201 by the defendant against the plaintiff on August 18, 2011 shall be revoked."

The reason for this decision is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the remaining part of the judgment excluding the judgment on the part concerning the claim for revocation of the disposition of local income tax of this case among the judgment of the court of first instance). If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit