The burden of proof on the actual owner of bonus disposition is legitimate because there is no proof on the taxpayer, so the notification of change in the amount of income is legitimate.

In determining or revising the corporate tax base, it is clear that the company was out of the company among the amount included in gross income, but it is unclear that the amount is attributed to the representative, and the burden of proof on the actual person who has accrued the income shall be deemed to have been attributed to the representative.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to participation by the Intervenor shall be borne by the Intervenor, and the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition of notification of change in income amount of KRW 1,747,393,931 against the plaintiff on February 8, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff appropriated assets of KRW 5,524,315,574 as a company providing funeral services, and as a funeral hall new construction work, interior management work, landscaping work, etc. on the balance sheet in the business year 2005.

B. The Defendant confirmed that the processed amount of KRW 1,747,393,931 (hereinafter “instant key amount”) out of KRW 5,524,315,574, as a result of the corporate tax investigation of the Plaintiff, was included in the calculation of losses, and then disposed of as a bonus to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor who is the representative director at the time of inclusion in the calculation of losses, and notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income on February 8, 2010 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 16, 2010. However, the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed on October 25, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff and the plaintiff assistant intervenor's assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

In the Defendant’s consolidated investigation of corporate tax against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor stated that “In the instant case, the funeral hall took many expenses, such as authorization and permission-related expenses at the time of opening a business and constructing a new building, but it took place voluntarily as tangible assets such as facilities, equipment, and fixtures, which are not subject to local tax,” with respect to the instant issues, the Defendant should have investigated whether the Plaintiff’s statement was true, and should have confirmed the actual owner of the instant key amount, and disposed of income based on the result. However, the instant disposition was rendered by deeming that the ownership of the key amount is unclear, and thus, the instant disposition was erroneous in failing to verify the facts required for the exercise of the authority to impose tax.

(2) The plaintiff assistant intervenor's assertion

The instant disposition is against the substance and the three principles, as it did not take into account at all the actual ownership relationship of benefits, and is contrary to the principle of excessive prohibition if there seems to be clear circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s improper outflow, embezzlement, or misappropriation of the key amount of the instant case out of the company, the key amount of the instant disposition is deemed as corporate tax and corporate tax can be imposed only on the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s Intervenor by regarding other issues of the instant case as the outflow of the company, and the bonus disposition can be imposed in such a way that it could minimize damage

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8831 of Dec. 31, 2007); Article 106 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19328 of Feb. 9, 2006) provides that, in determining or revising the corporate tax base, the amount included in the calculation of earnings clearly flows out of the amount included in the calculation of earnings but the ownership of which is unclear shall be deemed to be attributed to the representative. Such representative standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing being a bonus for the actual relation with the amount actually accrued to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on the premise that the defendant has the burden of proof as to the relation of actual attribution of the issue amount of this case is without merit.

(2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion

As seen earlier, in determining or revising the corporate tax base, the relevant statutes explicitly stipulate that the amount included in the calculation of earnings is clearly excluded from the company, but the amount of which attribution is unclear shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative. Therefore, under the circumstances where there is no proof by the Plaintiff on the actual relationship of attribution, the Defendant’s disposal of the issue amount as bonus to the Plaintiff Intervenor who is the representative director at the time of the determination or correction of the corporate tax base as a bonus for the Plaintiff Intervenor, the representative director at the time

Therefore, the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.