logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014. 11. 26. 선고 2014누59223 판결
해외거래처 시장개척비 명목으로 법인대표자 개인통장으로 익금 된 금액은 법인의 수입으로 보아 법인세를 부과처분은 정당함[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap64615 ( October 25, 2014)

Title

The amount of profit made by the representative of a corporation through an individual passbook under the name of the market opening expenses for the overseas transaction place shall be deemed the income of the corporation and the corporate tax shall

Summary

(The same as the judgment of the first instance court) The amount deposited for a long time by the representative of the corporation under the name of market opening expenses at the overseas trading office is the income of the corporation and the bonus disposal of the representative is legitimate.

Cases

2014Nu5923 Revocation of Corporate Tax Imposition Disposition

Plaintiff and appellant

AA Rouritius Co., Ltd.

Defendant, Appellant

o Head of the tax office

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap64615 decided July 25, 2014

Conclusion of Pleadings

October 22, 2014

Imposition of Judgment

November 26, 2014

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's imposition of corporate tax for the plaintiff on December 3, 2013, the corporate tax for the year 2007, the corporate tax for the year 2008, the corporate tax for the year 2009, the corporate tax for the year 2009, the corporate tax for the corporate tax for the year 2010, the corporate tax for the year 2010, and the corporate tax for the corporate tax for the year 2011 is revoked.

Reasons

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow