logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.01.23 2014고단2484
조세범처벌법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 30 million.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 20,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From April 22, 2003 to June 30, 2013, the Defendant is a person who actually operated a marketing consulting company under the name of H, whose mother is the Defendant’s mother.

1. On June 29, 2012, the Defendant evaded global income tax on June 2011, when filing a final return on the tax base of global income tax attributed to Gangnam District Office (Seoul District Court Decision 2015, Jun. 29, 2012), the Defendant unlawfully deducted necessary expenses by entering the amount of wage and salary payment as if the Defendant actually received wage even though the Defendant had not received wage while operating the said company, and then deducted necessary expenses. ② The fact of KRW 600 million out of the payment fees was that the Defendant entered into a service contract with J, K, L, and M even though the Defendant did not have concluded the service contract with the said person, as if the Defendant entered into the service contract with the said person, he/she would have improperly deducted necessary expenses by filing a false service contract with the said person at the Hear hotel located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and paid the global income tax by reducing the amount of global income by filing a return on reduction of the amount of income and paying the global income tax on June 30, 2012.

2. On July 1, 2013, the Defendant evaded global income tax on July 1, 2012, when filing a final return on the tax base of global income tax reverted to Gangnam, Gangnam District Office, 2012, the Defendant made a false service contract with the Defendant on July 1, 2013, and paid KRW 180,000,000,000,000,000 for each service cost by preparing a false service contract with L and N around that time, even though the Defendant did not actually receive the said benefits while operating the said company, as if the Defendant received the said benefits, and subsequently deducted necessary expenses.

arrow