Only the facts disbursed in the account book or bank passbook shall not be recognized as expenses.

It is difficult to recognize that the omission amount was not leaked out of the company on the sole basis of the account books submitted by the Plaintiff or the fact-finding results, etc. on the account books or banks, such as the expense of the Plaintiff’s assertion or the actual response to the income

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Under the principle of tax law, the interpretation of tax law shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogical interpretation without reasonable grounds. However, if it is necessary to clarify the meaning through mutual interpretation between laws, it shall be permitted to make a combined interpretation in consideration of the purpose of legislation and purpose within the extent that it does not undermine the legal stability and predictability pursued by the principle of no taxation without law.

Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8831 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that "in reporting, determining or revising the tax base of corporate tax, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company, and reserves in the company, according to the person to whom the income belongs," and the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18706 of Feb. 19, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "where the reversion is unclear, it shall be deemed that it belongs to the representative."

Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that when filing a return, determination, or correction of the corporate tax base, the amount included in the calculation of the income is reserved or leaked to the corporation inside or outside of the corporation. If the amount is leaked to the outside of the company, it is a procedure under the tax law that determines the type of the person to whom the income is reverted and the type of the income already accrued in a specific taxable year. If it is clear that the amount included in the calculation of the income has leaked to the outside of the company, it can be sufficiently expected that the case of the "unreverted statement" that the person to whom the income is attributed cannot objectively be determined through taxation data, notwithstanding the fact that there is a person to whom the income is attributed. Thus, even though Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that "the amount included in the calculation of the income shall be disposed, disposed, and disposed of according to the person to whom the income is attributed, the type and content of the disposition of income delegated by Presidential Decree shall be deemed to include the cases where the amount reverted to the outside of the company is unclear (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du4276, Apr. 276, 20086).

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is not invalid, is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of delegation by

2. On the second and third grounds for appeal

If a corporation did not enter its sales in an account book despite the fact of sales, the total amount omitted from sales, including response expenses, such as sales cost, shall be deemed to have been leaked out to the private place, barring special circumstances. In such cases, the special circumstance that the total amount omitted from sales was not leaked to the private place shall be proved by the corporation asserting it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu19151, May 25, 199). The corporation entered the account book for actual transactions (confidential) and the account book for tax return for external use in the account book and filed a final return on tax base, etc. based on the account book for such report. The taxation office compared the two account books and compared the contents of the account book and added the difference between the details of the corporation's report for reporting and the actual transaction expenses, and thereby rejected inclusion of the inclusion in deductible expenses, such taxation disposition shall be deemed legitimate disposition of tax evasion in the final return by the tax office (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 197Nu1984, supra.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion because it is difficult to recognize that the omission amount was not leaked out of the company, such as the expenses incurred in relation to the plaintiff's submission or the actual response to income, in light of the circumstances that the tax authorities revealed the omission amount based on the account books, not the account books of the plaintiff's submission, but the account books, the account books of the bank, etc. on the basis of the account books of the plaintiff's submission. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's fact-finding and decision are just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation or misapprehension

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.