Cheongju District Court-2018-Gu Partnership-2204 ( November 22, 2018)

Cho Jae-2017- Daejeon-4035 ( November 16, 2017)

Expenses incurred in omission in sales or processing of a corporation shall be excluded from the company, except in extenuating circumstances, and a representative disposition shall be made as bonus in cases where attribution is unclear.

(1) Where a corporation fails to record its sales in the account book or appropriates the cost of processing in the account book, barring any special circumstance, the profit of the corporation equivalent to the whole amount of the omission of sales or the cost of processing shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the company. In this case, the special circumstance that it is deemed that the omission of sales or the cost of processing was not leaked out of the company shall be proved by the corporation asserting it.

Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) 2018Nu1542 Notice of Change in Income Amount

○○○○○○○

○ Head of tax office

National Rotations

April 24, 2019

May 15, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. On January 9, 2017, the defendant revoked the disposition of notification of change in the amount of income to the plaintiff 178,303,880 won as a bonus belonging to the year 2015 and the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 23,245,640 (including additional tax) as corporate tax belonging to the year 2015.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the appeal do not differ significantly from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence presented to the first instance court and this court were examined, the fact-finding and the judgment of the first instance court rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable (it is alleged that the Plaintiff has the portion of expenses not appropriated as expenses despite having been disbursed as business purposes. However, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff cannot be seen as either whether the items alleged by the Plaintiff were actually disbursed as expenses or not separately from the expenditure already reflected in the course of each disposition of this case, and thus,

B. Accordingly, the reasoning for the entry in this case is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

○ Amendment of the first instance judgment of the first instance to the second instance judgment of the second instance “one minute” of the first instance judgment.

○ An amendment to “178,303,808 won” of the 3th judgment of the first instance court to “178,303,880 won”.

○ Amendment of the 7th written judgment of the first instance court to any "number" of pages 11.

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.