Seocho-2013- Busan District Court-4839 (Law No. 19, 2014)

Since depreciation costs exist, financial evidence, etc. exist, the non-party to the loss is unfair, and the disposition denying the bonus paid without payment regulations for the loss is legitimate.

Depreciation costs are not proven, such as tax invoices, but there are machines, and there are management ledger and financial evidence, so it is improper for the manager of the loss, and the disposition of causing the non-performance of the officer bonus paid without payment regulations as deductible expenses is legitimate.

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

2014Guhap21422 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

The machinery is not disclosed, and it is a documentary evidence related to the purchase of this machine.

A total of 675 million won withdrawn from a passbook of KimCC from October 00, 2007 to October 00, 2007

The plaintiff's head of Tong to KimCC's head of Tong on October 0, 2007 is a total of KRW 600 million transferred on October 00, 200.

(2) There is no indication that each of the said money is related to the purchase of the instant machinery

Recognized.

C) On the other hand, however, the evidence and the purport of the entire pleading as mentioned above are revealed.

In light of the recent circumstances, the Plaintiff’s instant case from October 2007 to October 2007

The fact that the machinery was purchased and used for the business, and the machinery purchase cost of this case was paid 600 million won.

Since the defendant sufficient proof activities, the depreciation costs of this case are necessary expenses.

In light of the following circumstances, the foregoing shall be proved to the effect that the person does not constitute

B) The facts alone lack the proof, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the depreciation costs of this case should be included in the deductible expenses.

(1) The instant case in the facility records management ledger prepared by the Plaintiff from October 2007 to October 2007

The machinery was purchased, and thereafter the installation of equipment and trial operation for the machinery of this case shall be carried out, and various parts shall be carried out.

The details of repair, such as replacement, are stated, and the plaintiff from 2008 of this case

The existence of the instant machinery was recognized by the Defendant, which included the depreciation costs of the machinery in deductible expenses;

Accordingly, the director of the regional tax office of the OO shall not submit the machinery of this case for non-processed assets upon filing an objection.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff is a purchased asset, etc., the period of this case from October 2007 to October 2007

the purchase of the Corporation. The purchase shall be deemed to have been

(2) Taking into account the type, size, power capacity, function, weight, manufacturer, etc. of the instant machinery:

In light of the fact that the market value of the instant machinery is high, it appears that it would reach KRW 00 million;

In light of the details of passbook transactions from October 2007 to October 2007, the Plaintiff’s transaction to KimCC on October 0, 2007

In addition to the material KRW 600,000, other than the material KRW 600,000, in order to purchase the machinery of this case, the source of which was withdrawn.

subsection (b) of this section.

(3) The Plaintiff’s depreciation costs of tangible fixed assets from 2008 to 2012

When preparing a statement of accounts, the machinery of this case shall be deemed to have been acquired at 600 million won on October 0, 2007.

Each year, depreciation costs were included in deductible expenses by applying the fixed rate method.

(4) The Plaintiff’s instant case from the defaulted string processing company in Gyeonggi-do through Brackers

Purchase of machinery by paying 675 million won over five occasions from October 2007 to October 2007

The name of the sub-O industry, which is inevitable by KimCC, has been the name of the sub-O industry.

Ga. The machine of this case was accepted, and the evidence of the transaction was not prepared properly.

(1) The plaintiff's statement of depreciation costs of this case

The remainder of the machinery except the System is indicated in the real name of each machine, but this case’s machine

(2) from October 0, 2007 to the passbook of KimCC.

Until October 00, 2007, a total of KRW 675 million was withdrawn on five occasions, and the date the money was withdrawn.

B. The date on which the instant machine was installed is equal or very close to that on the facility records management ledger;

③ The Plaintiff’s representative director southB and KimCC is married, and KimCC is the representative of the virtueO industry.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's explanation can be sufficiently understood.

(5) The Defendant’s transfer of this case’s mechanical transaction from the Plaintiff to the effect that the transaction was processed.

Upon receipt of a written confirmation, the instant written confirmation was forced against the will of the originator.

it is difficult to take it as evidentiary materials on the specific facts due to the absence of the content thereof, etc.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the evidence of the instant confirmation cannot be readily denied.

2. On the other hand, in light of the above circumstances, such as the existence of the instant machine itself is without dispute.

In this regard, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant certificate alone is a processing transaction.

2) Determination as to the bonus of this case

§ 19(1) of the Corporate Tax Act excludes disposal of surplus 1) from deductible expenses, and such act

Article 43 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act shall apply to the corporation's executive officer to dispose of profits (the corporation's voluntary disposal of profits);

by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders the amount to be added to such amounts shall be paid by a resolution

corporation is excluded from the deductible expenses. However, the officer has the right of determination of bonus payment.

Therefore, bonus paid to executive officers is a disposal of surplus, and it is often a bonus in the original meaning.

of this case, it is difficult to distinguish whether it is a bonus or bonus, which is a disposal of surplus, from a bonus not disposal;

section 43(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall adopt a resolution of its articles of incorporation, general meeting of shareholders or board of directors.

any bonus paid under the criteria for the payment of wages determined by the

Considering that it is reasonable, it is recognized as loss.

However, this case's benefits payment criteria decided by the articles of incorporation, shareholders' meeting or board of directors

Since the fact that bonuses were paid does not conflict between the parties, the bonus in this case is deductible expenses.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3) the assessment of legitimate corporate tax

A) Whether the legality of a disposition in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition exceeds the legitimate tax amount

as determined by the parties, the objective tax base and time of the closing of the trial proceedings.

may lawfully submit arguments and materials in support of the amount of tax and by such material;

If the reasonable amount of tax to be imposed is calculated, only the portion exceeding the reasonable amount of tax shall be revoked.

[Defendant-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant]

B) The depreciation costs of the instant case must be included in the deductible expenses, and the bonus of the instant case shall be included in the deductible expenses.

As seen earlier, in full view of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire argument, the above-mentioned evidence and the pleading is not allowed.

Among each disposition of this case, the depreciation costs and bonuses of this case concerning corporate tax for the business year 2010

the depreciation costs of this case are included in the calculation of losses, each of which is non-deductible losses;

If bonus in this case is excluded from deductible expenses, the amount of tax to be properly corrected and notified shall be 00,000,000.

Since the facts are known, among each disposition of this case, the depreciation costs of this case were excluded from deductible expenses.

208, 2009, 2011, and part on imposition of corporate tax for each business year of 2012 and corporate tax for 2010

The portion exceeding 00,00,000 won out of 00,000 won shall be revoked in each unlawful manner.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is accepted.

Therefore, it is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

PaA Co., Ltd.

00. Head of tax office

May 26, 2015

June 16, 2015

1. The Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on October 0, 2013:

A. Each disposition of KRW 00,000,000 of corporate tax for the business year 2008, KRW 00,000,000 of corporate tax for the business year 2009, KRW 00,000 of corporate tax for the business year 2011, and KRW 00,000,000 of corporate tax for the business year 2012, and each disposition of KRW 00,000 of corporate tax for the business year 2010 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The imposition of corporate tax of KRW 0,00,000 on the Plaintiff on September 2, 2013 shall be revoked in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of the Gu office branch office 1 and the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 0,000,000, which

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff reported corporate tax from 2008 up to 2012 to 2012, and purchased 6 machinery, such as seals and seals (hereinafter referred to as "the machinery of this case") from March 2007 to May 2007 and used it for its business. The plaintiff's total depreciation costs of 00,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the depreciation costs of this case") were included as deductible expenses; 00,000,000 won for each of 20,000 won for corporate tax investigation of the plaintiff; 00,000,000 won for 0,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000,000 won for 0,000 won for 20,000,000 won for 20,000,000 won for 20,0000,000 won for 20,000.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) From March 2007 to May 2007, the Plaintiff purchased the instant machine in the name of sub-industrial name, Bracker, which is represented by KimCC, in the name of sub-industrial name, and paid KRW 675 million from the head of KimCC’s Tong to withdraw KRW 675 million in the purchase price. On May 22, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 600 million from the Plaintiff’s passbook to the head of KimCC’s Tong. Accordingly, since the Plaintiff purchased the instant machine in the name of KRW 60 million and actually provided it to the Plaintiff’s business, the depreciation costs of the instant machine should be included in the calculation of losses.

2) Since the Plaintiff annually determines the bonus to be paid to an employee through a labor-management consultation and the bonus to an officer is paid the same as the bonus to be paid to an employee, the instant bonus should be included in the calculation of losses.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the depreciation costs of this case

A) The burden of proof of the tax base, which serves as the basis of taxation in a lawsuit seeking revocation of corporate tax disposition, is the tax authority. Since the tax base of revenue and necessary expenses is deducted from necessary expenses, the tax authority shall bear the burden of proof. However, considering that the necessary expenses are favorable to the taxpayer and most of the facts generating the necessary expenses are located in the territory controlled by the taxpayer and it is easy to prove them, the burden of proof can be acknowledged to the taxpayer by allowing presumption of non-existence as to necessary expenses for which the taxpayer does not engage in verification activities.

B) In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and the whole arguments, the plaintiff representative director prepared a written confirmation (hereinafter referred to as the "written confirmation of this case") stating that "the plaintiff's assets (the machinery of this case) of KRW 600 million are not known to the actual business operator operating the plaintiff on Oct. 0, 2013, which he purchased on Oct. 0, 2007 (the asset name of the plaintiff under the depreciation specifications) and that there is no documentary evidence related to purchase, such as payment evidence, tax invoice, contract, etc." (hereinafter referred to as the "written confirmation of this case"), and that the plaintiff prepared this written confirmation.