Suwon District Court 2005Guhap2150 ( October 22, 2008)

National High Court Decision 2004J 3724 (Law No. 75.04)

Whether a revised revised report is made for the creation of the extra capital;

In light of the fact that an investigation and a trial have been conducted on the raising of funds outside the country, etc., it is reasonable to deem that prior notice was given by the Defendant that the change in the amount of income would have already been given prior to the receipt of a change in the ownership of the shares, the recovered amount cannot be disposed

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 67 of the former Income Tax Act

Article 106 of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The disposition of imposing corporate tax on the Plaintiff as stated in the separate sheet of disposition No. 2004.7.9, which the Defendant issued against the Plaintiff, and the disposition of notifying the change of income amount in the separate sheet of disposition No. 204.7.14, the separate sheet of disposition No. 2004.7.7.14.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff shall revoke the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance. The imposition of each corporate tax stated in the separate sheet on July 9, 2004 on the disposition details attached to the defendant's order against the plaintiff and the disposition of changing land on each income amount stated in the separate sheet on July 14, 2004 shall be revoked.

B. The defendant has revoked the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part concerning the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

[Attachment]

(a) revise '27,022,276,959' on the 3rd judgment of the first instance court to '27,022,276,659';

(b) revise the 3rd page "12,001,160,000" as "12,01,60,000";

(c) revise the first sentence from the third person to the second sentence."

D. To revise the 'not guilty' of No. 3 on No. 4 to 'not guilty', and to 'not guilty', the part of the 'not guilty' was deleted.

(e) revise the 6th page 4 from 'P' to 'P';

(f) revise the 4th class from the 7th page to the 'bearing'.

(g) revise the 5th 'PP proposal' from the 8th to the 'Plaintiff's.

(h) revise the 'tax disposition' of heading 10, 14, as an imposition disposition;

(i) revise the 7th anniversary of the 11th page to the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff”;

(j) modify the 12th page 4 to '(c)'.

(k) revise the 3rd part of the ground outflow to the 3rd part of the ground outflow.

(l) to report "inform and modify "in accordance with the 14th report box" in Chapter 13.

(m) from Nos. 14 to No. 16 to 8, “(1) whether the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is invalid” is amended as follows:

(1) Whether the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is invalid

(A) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws 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, where 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 legislative intent and purpose to the extent that it does not undermine the legal stability and predictability of the law being committed under the principle of no taxation without law.

(B) Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that "in filing a report on, or determining or revising, the tax base of corporate tax, the amount included in gross income shall be disposed of as bonus, dividends, other outflows, internal reserves, etc. according to the person to whom such income reverts, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." The proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "in cases 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 "in filing a report on, or determining or correcting the tax base of corporate tax, the disposal of income under Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act shall be deemed as belonging to the representative if the amount included in gross income is reserved or leaked inside the corporation, and if the amount included in gross income is leaked out of the company, it shall be deemed as belonging to the person to whom such income belongs and the type of income is confirmed after determining the type of income already belonging to a specific taxable year." Article 208 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that it shall be deemed as belonging to the person.

(C) Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion by another third party is without merit.

(n) revise from the 17th page to the 15.4 billion '16.4 billion'.

(o) revise the first and second final judgments to the "each final judgment".

(p)a modification to the terms of the Generalhographs Nos. 18, 7, and 13, as follows:

Article 106 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that " Even if the amount of capital increase was released from the company, the income disposition shall be deemed as the first place for the company's return, if a domestic corporation collects the amount unfairly released from the company, such as omitting sales and processing expenses, and reports the amount of capital increase to the company by including 2.4 million capital increase in the company's stock to the defendant after obtaining a transfer of title from the Y company, and thus, the notice of change in the amount of capital increase in the company's stock increase in the company's stock in the company's name was an illegal disposition that failed to meet the requirements for representative disposition." Thus, the plaintiff's transfer of title to the Y company's stock in the company's name as the plaintiff's assertion that the transfer of title to the Y company's capital increase in the company's capital increase in the company's capital increase in the company's capital increase in the company's capital increase in the company's capital increase in the company's capital increase in the company's capital increase."

(q) revise the 'stock purchase funds' in Section 19 as the 'stock purchase price';

(r) To revise the attached Form 6 of the 19th page to the "attached Form 6" list;

(s) revise the “amount of notice of change in income amount” in Chapter 7, as the “amount of notice of change in income amount”.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.