The early 2014 middle 2449

If a notice of change in the amount of income was served after rehabilitation procedures commence, the earned income tax claim does not constitute a rehabilitation claim under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

Where a person disposes of the outflow of a corporation as a representative bonus and notifies the change in the amount of income, the liability to pay the tax on the earned income subject to withholding shall be established at the time when the notice of change in the amount of income is served, so if the notice of change in amount was served after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures,

Article 179(1)9 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act

2015Guhap2912 Revocation of Notice of Changes in Income Amount

Rehabilitation Company***** in administrator**

*The Director of the Tax Office

December 10, 2015

January 14, 2016

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's disposition of 6,762,98,00 won on February 1, 2014 for the plaintiff's 2008 business year belonging to the plaintiff and 8,286,370,00 won for the business year belonging to the 2009 business year shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Co., Ltd.****** (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”) has engaged in the manufacturing of animal drugs;

On April 19, 2011, the company filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with Suwon District Court 201 Ma41, which was decided to commence rehabilitation procedures on February 10, 201, and obtained the rehabilitation plan approval on May 15, 2013, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the administrator of the company of this case from Suwon District Court.

B. Around 2013, the Defendant conducted a corporate integration investigation with respect to the instant company.

the representative director of the corporation and the largest shareholder of the corporation* Ack* Ack of counting processed assets through window dressing accounting, etc.

On February 1, 2014, Y*'s embezzlement amount as listed below was confirmed by law, and disposed of as bonus or recognized bonus for each representative in the business year 2008 and 2009 of the company of this case, and notified the company of the change in income amount (hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case").

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 18, 2014, but on April 4, 2015.

29. was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 18 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition was made on the basis of the "recognized Loan Disposition" that is clearly deemed to have been reverted to the representative as it is unclear and it is deemed to have been reverted to the representative. The bonus which is deemed to have been reverted to the representative under the proviso of Article 179 (1) 9 (a) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "the Debtor Rehabilitation Act") includes not only the recognized bonus disposition but also the bonus disposition, so the wage and salary income tax claim withheld from the instant disposition (hereinafter "the instant tax claim") does not fall under the "tax amount withheld from the bonus which is deemed to have been reverted to the representative" and thus excluded from the public interest claim pursuant to the proviso of Article 179 (1) 9 (a) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

Therefore, the pertinent taxation claim constitutes a rehabilitation claim under Article 118 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

Since the Defendant did not report the above taxation claim as a rehabilitation claim within the reporting period, the above taxation claim;

On May 15, 2013, the rehabilitation plan approval order for the instant company was extinguished by forfeited rights.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case was made on the grounds of extinguished tax claims, and thus illegal.

Therefore, it must be cancelled.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Tax claims are any property arising from the grounds before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures under Article 118 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

whether a claim constitutes a rehabilitation claim or not prescribed by the Act prior to the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings.

It is determined on the basis of whether the taxation claim has been established due to the fulfillment of the taxation requirements, and the tax authority disposes of the outflow amount of the corporation as a bonus as the representative and the income amount.

Where notice of change in the amount is given, the liability to pay tax on earned income subject to withholding tax shall change in the amount of income.

Inasmuch as a notice of change in the amount of income becomes final and conclusive at the time of delivery of the notice, if the notice of change was served after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures for the relevant corporation, the claim on the amount of earned income tax withheld at source is generated after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures and does not constitute rehabilitation claims under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Du23365, Feb. 28, 2013; 2015Du844, Jun. 11, 201

In light of the structure and history of the provisions of Articles 118 and 179(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, which provide for the scope of rehabilitation claims and public-interest claims, the above legal doctrine is equally applied to not only the case of "a clear statement that the outflow from the company belongs to the representative, but also the case of "a recognized contribution disposition," which is deemed to have accrued to the representative. Where Article 179(1)9 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act applies, a notice of change in the amount of income was issued before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and thus, the liability to pay tax on the amount of wage and salary income withheld therefrom was established, but the payment deadline has not yet arrived or has not yet expired at the commencement of rehabilitation procedures.

2) In the instant case:

The notice of change in the amount of income, namely, the fact that the instant disposition was taken after the decision was rendered to commence the rehabilitation procedure for the instant company, on the grounds that the embezzlement of the representative director of the instant company was leaked out of the company, is as seen earlier. Therefore, in light of the relevant legal principles, the instant tax claim does not constitute rehabilitation claims. Accordingly, the prior Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit without

3. Conclusion

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