Even if the omitted amount of sales was deposited into a corporation under the name of the gold, the bonus disposition shall be made;

Even if the omitted amount of sales was deposited into a corporation under the name of the representative director's provisional payment, etc. and there was no actual cash leakage, as long as the provisional payment was in the company's liability account, the actual amount is the same as the amount of the obligation to be repaid to the representative director in the future.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Of the notice of change in income amount of KRW 1,418,648,52 for the Plaintiff on August 4, 2004, and KRW 599,738,596 for the year 2002, the Defendant revoked the disposition of notification of change in income amount of KRW 491,795,828 for the year 2001, and KRW 383,800 for the year 2002.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a result of the tax investigation on the Plaintiff Company, the ○○ regional tax office confirmed that the Plaintiff Company omitted the total amount of KRW 39,00,000 in apartment sale income in 200 and KRW 1,269,178,522 in 2001, and rent of KRW 82,470,00 in apartment sale income in 201, and KRW 1,418,648,522 in 20, and KRW 188,575,277 in 202, and KRW 27,363,319 in apartment sale income amount, and KRW 383,80,596 in total, including KRW 2,07,387,387,118 in sales income amount in 202.

B. The defendant on August 4, 2004, according to the result of the above tax investigation, shall be the plaintiff.

(1) In addition to the above omitted revenues in the pertinent business year’s gross income, the Plaintiff was notified of the correction of KRW 636,073,250 for the pertinent business year’s corporate tax for 2001, KRW 505,103,790 for the second period’s corporate tax for 2002, KRW 3,077,440 for the second period’s value-added tax for 200, KRW 117,872,480 for the second period’s value-added tax for 2001, KRW 17,484,520 for the first period’s value-added tax for 202, KRW 24,917,740 for the second period’s value-added tax for 20

(2) As indicated below, 326,795,828 won (hereinafter referred to as "the first amount"), 165,000,000 out of the amount omitted from the sale in lots for the year 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the second amount"), and 383,800,000 won out of the amount omitted from the sale in lots for the year 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the third amount of this case"), were disposed of as bonus from the Plaintiff's representative director ○○, the sum of 2,057,387,118 won, including 383,80,000 won among the amount omitted from the sale in lots for the year 201 (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case").

Year

Types and Details

Amount omitted in filing a report

Amount of 1

201

An amount of proceeds from sale (○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○, and ○○○○○○)

326,795,828 won

Amount of 2

201

Amount of proceeds from sale (the amount of subrogated for the secured debt created by the ○○○○○-○ apartment ○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○)

165,000,000

Amount of 3

202

Sales income (○○○○○-○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○)

383,800,000 won

C. On October 20, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on the imposition of the above corporate tax and value-added tax and the notification of changes in the above income amount. The Director of the National Tax Tribunal made a partial decision of acceptance on December 30, 2005, but decided to dismiss the instant disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1's evidence 1's 1, 2, Eul 1's evidence 1's 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and issues

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserted that the disposition of this case is legitimate on the grounds of the above disposition and the related Acts and subordinate statutes. The plaintiff alleged that ① the amount of 1,300,000 won was transferred to the buyer, even though it was transferred to 765,00,000,000 won to the buyer, it was reported that it was transferred to 600,000 won to 165,000,000 won, and that the amount of 165,50,000 won, excluding 15,000,000,000 won, excluding 15,000,000,000 won, was used as a brokerage fee to the plaintiff's deposit account without going through the representative director, so the above amount was not leaked to the plaintiff's construction site acquisition fund. The plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the condition that the buyer paid the corporate loan of 75,000,000 won to the buyer, despite the fact that it was in the form of cash outflow.

B. Issues

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the amount of No. 1 or 3 of this case was reserved in the company or leaked outside the company and reverted to the representative director.

3. Determination

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

In filing a report on the tax base of corporate tax on the income for each business year under the provisions of Article 60 or in determining or revising the tax base of corporate tax under the provisions of Article 66 or 69, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of as bonus, dividends, and other outflow from the company, retained reserves, etc. according to the person to

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18706, Feb. 19, 2005)

(1) The amount included in the calculation of earnings under the provisions of Article 67 of the Act shall be disposed of under the provisions of the following subparagraphs. The same shall also apply to nonprofit domestic corporations and

1. Where it is obvious that the amount included in the calculation of earnings has leaked out of the company, the dividends, bonuses from the disposition of profits, other income, and other outflow from the company under each of the following items according to the person to whom they accrue:

2. Where the amount included in gross income has not leaked out of the company, it shall be deemed internal reserves;

B. Determination

(1) Where a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite the fact of sales, the total amount omitted from sales should be deemed to have been leaked out of the company, barring any special circumstance. In this case, the special circumstance that the omission of sales should be proved by the corporation, and even if the corporation's account amount received through sales is not finalized and the cash, which is the other party account, was entered in the account book of provisional deposits, once it was entered in the account book of provisional deposits, and it is verified that the contents of the provisional deposits account were entered in the account book of temporary loans from the representative director, and it is not related to the corporation's profit or expenses, and thus, such transactions are not related to the corporation's profit or expenses, unless there are special circumstances, such as the processed debts under the name of which the corporation's obligation to pay the provisional deposits was not scheduled to be entered in the account book, and the amount which should have already been entered in the account book should be deemed to have been leaked to the representative director's profit or loss (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du3612.

(2) The facts that the Plaintiff did not enter the revenue amount in the account book and appropriated it as the provisional revenue amount of the Plaintiff’s representative director without any dispute between the parties. As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the omitted revenue amount was directly used as the Plaintiff’s deposit account and the Plaintiff’s construction site acquisition fund (the amount No. 1 and 3 of this case) or there was no actual cash inflow or outflow (the amount No. 2 of this case) as part of the Plaintiff’s corporate loan, which was subrogated by the buyer, as a part of the Plaintiff’s corporate loan, (the amount No. 2 of this case), the above provisional revenue amount is the same as the obligation to be repaid to the representative director in the future as long as the said provisional revenue amount was in the Plaintiff’s debt account, and thus, the amount which should have been entered as the income amount of the Plaintiff’s income shall be deemed to have already been leaked to the representative director, who is the other party to the above provisional revenue transaction. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit (the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is merely a nominal that there is no ground.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.