logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015. 01. 16. 선고 2013누52553 판결
주주임원 단기채권이 사유에 유출된 것이 분명하다고 보기 어려움[일부패소]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Suwon District Court 2013Guhap10435

Case Number of the previous trial

Examination Income 2012-0137

Title

It is difficult to see that short-term bonds have been leaked.

Summary

Even if the Plaintiff, while taking office as the representative director, acquired the provisional payment obligation corresponding to the short-term bonds of shareholders and employees, it is difficult to see that the corporation closed its business and distributed the amount equivalent to the short-term bonds of shareholders and employees to shareholders, including the Plaintiff, as part of the liquidation procedure, as part of the remaining assets, it is difficult to see that the short-term bonds of

Related statutes

Article 66 (Determination and Correction)

Cases

2013Nu5253 The detailed details of global income and revocation of disposition

Plaintiff and appellant

AA

Defendant, Appellant

O Head of tax office

Judgment of the first instance court

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Guhap10435 Decided November 7, 2013

Conclusion of Pleadings

December 5, 2014

Imposition of Judgment

January 16, 2015

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim

Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 000,000 on the Plaintiff on January 2, 2012, 2007

The disposition shall be revoked.

Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding thereto shall be dismissed.

section 3.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

In addition, “(a)” is added to the first head of the 4th judgment, and the second head of the 5th judgment is added to the following parts. (b) In a case where the residual property value falls short of the capital and did not collect a loan to the representative director who is a shareholder as a part of the liquidation procedures following the closure of the business, there is room to deem that a corporation distributed the amount equivalent to the loan to the representative director as part of the residual property as part of the liquidation procedures following the closure of the business, it is difficult to view that the amount equivalent to the loan was leaked out out of the company (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du30205, Jun. 28,

In full view of Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 6-1, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 6-1, Eul evidence No. 6-1, Eul evidence No. 6-2 and the purport of all pleadings, the following facts are acknowledged: (1) BB was voluntarily closed by the consent of the representative on May 31, 2007, and was not dissolved or liquidation registration until the date of 2011; (2) according to the balance sheet (Evidence No. 6-1) of BB in 2007, the total assets of BB, including short-term loans of shareholders, was less than KRW 000, and there was no liquidation income amount. ③ At the closure of the business of BB, the plaintiff was holding 31.8% of the BB shares at the time of the closure of the business, and the remainder was held by the director CB, DD, and EB of the BB that the plaintiff held the shares of the BB at the general meeting of shareholders on 300,2009.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the Plaintiff acquired the provisional payment obligation corresponding to the short-term claim of shareholders of this case from FF upon taking office as the representative director, it is reasonable to view that BB closed its business and distributed the amount equivalent to the short-term claim of shareholders of this case to shareholders including the Plaintiff as part of the remaining assets as part of the liquidation procedure. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the short-term claim of shareholders of this case was leaked out of the company.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow