1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for admitting and amending the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the reasons for admitting and modifying this case are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment; (b) except adding the judgment as to the contents asserted in the court of first instance to the corresponding part as set forth in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, it is acceptable as it is.

[3] (3) As to the amount reverted to the representative, etc. of a corporation from the original outflow, even if the income tax liability becomes effective, it cannot affect the income tax liability already established even if the amount was returned to the corporation later. Thus, in principle, a disposition of income is conducted pursuant to Article 106 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22035, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply). However, the main sentence of Article 106 (4) provides an opportunity for voluntary correction to the corporation by deeming that the amount was not out of the corporation if it was recovered by voluntary efforts within the prescribed period.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du40573, Sept. 23, 2016). However, even according to the language and text of Article 106(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, it is insufficient for a corporation to recover the amount of outflow from the company to dispose of the amount of outflow from the company as its retained earnings, which is insufficient to collect the amount of outflow from the company as its retained earnings, and to complete the return by including

In other words, there is no dispute between the parties that the parties concerned did not take such measures as including the amount recovered from the plaintiff as the tax adjustment in the gross income.

Therefore, B was returned the amount equivalent to the instant embezzlement, including the instant income amount.