early 201J 3749 (2.09, 2012)

Since it is not deemed that it was not leaked to others, the disposition to recognize the representative director is legitimate.

Since there is no special circumstance to deem that the time of payment differs from the time of payment, and only the fact of payment alone was not leaked out of the company, the disposition to recognize the omitted amount of payment of the corporation to the representative director is legitimate.

2012Guhap233 Revocation of Disposition of Notice of Change in Income Amount

XX Co., Ltd

hill of the tax office

September 18, 2012

October 9, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On July 22, 2011, the Defendant’s notice of change in income amount issued to the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 9, 2008, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant of the materials that the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office received KRW 000,000,000 from OO (hereinafter “OO”) in the first taxable period of 2006, and KRW 00,000,000 in the second taxable period of 206.

B. Accordingly, on November 3, 2008, the Defendant issued a prior notice of taxation that the Defendant would dispose of the property as a bonus to the representative, on the ground that KRW 000,000, which was omitted from filing a return, was leaked out of the company and its attribution is unclear.

C. As to this, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant to recognize the response costs of 000 won which was omitted through the pre-assessment review, and the response costs were recognized through the pre-assessment review decision. On April 13, 2009, the Defendant issued a reservation disposition of 00 won in the calculation of earnings, a bonus of 00 won in the calculation of earnings, and a correction disposition was made by classifying 000 won as representative bonus and other 000 won as representative bonus.

D. On March 8, 2011, the director of the Central District Tax Office pointed out that the Defendant, while conducting a regular business audit for the Defendant, reserved the inclusion of the amount in the gross income, re-examines whether the disposition was appropriate. Accordingly, on July 22, 2006 of the same year, the Defendant disposed of the above KRW 000 to the Plaintiff as a bonus for the President A as the representative at the time of the business year 2006 and notified the change in the amount of income (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition”), and that the Plaintiff did not report the related earned income tax, etc. on September 8, 2006, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00 for the earned income tax for the year 206.

E. On October 6, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on February 9, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 10, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The amount of KRW 00 (hereinafter referred to as the "the amount of this case") subject to the disposition of this case is inevitably paid by the plaintiff for the right to lease and use of the place of business in the original and branch, and by the other party for the right to use the leased goods at the place of business in the name of an individual as a matter of the tax invoice, etc., and without documents, the documents were presented to the head of the representative, who was paid the provisional payment, but the amount which the head of the Gu received from O as the price for the goodwill and the compensation for losses was deposited into the plaintiff corporation account and managed as the collection of the provisional payment (the provisional payment of KRW 4.00, April 4, 2001; KRW 300, June 7, 2006; KRW 100, May 7, 2007; and each provisional payment of KRW 100,000, which was leaked as a bonus for the representative, but is not a violation of the disposition of this case.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On April 2001, the Plaintiff: (a) provided KRW 000 in return for the collection of office fixtures and facilities to this B, which had been previously lessee, while leasing the Gangnam-si Y-dong 99-10 Seobuk-gu Do 200; (b) withdrawn KRW 4.00 on the Plaintiff’s bank account from the same month and KRW 000 on the 30th of the same month.

(2) In addition, on July 2003, the Plaintiff leased Y 17-2 Y Y 105 and 106 (hereinafter “second business place”) and paid 000 won in return for the right of lease and facilities, etc. to the head of the former lessee. Specifically, the Plaintiff paid 00 won on June 10 of the same year in cash from the Plaintiff bank account. The Plaintiff paid 00 won on August 11 of the same year by means of remitting from the bank account of the head of the GuCC to KimD, a spouse of the building owner.

(3) On May 17, 2006, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 000,000,000,000 as the personal passbook of the head of AA where the representative director was the representative director, when transferring the status of tenant of the first place of business to the OO on May 17, 2006, under the pretext of the consideration of business rights and business loss compensation.

(4) In addition, on December 29, 2006, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 000 as the personal passbook of the head of the Tong, where the representative director was the representative director, under the pretext of the business rights price and the business loss compensation on the same day when transferring the status of the lessee of the second place of business to theO to theO.

(5) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received KRW 000 on June 7, 2006 from the headA as the representative director's deposit, and on May 17, 2007, deposited KRW 00 in the name of "headAA" as the representative director's deposit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1, Evidence No. 10, Evidence No. 4-8

C. Determination

If a corporation fails to record its sales in the account book despite the fact of sales, the omitted sales amount shall be deemed to have been leaked to the company. The revenue of the corporation that flown away from the account book shall be disposed of as a bonus for the representative, unless the ownership of the revenue is clear. In such a case, the omission amount of sales is not leaked to the company or the ownership of the revenue is clear (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du3855, Jun. 26, 2008). If the corporation did not record its sales in the account book despite the fact of sales despite the existence of the fact of sales, it shall be deemed that the total omission amount of sales, including the cost of sales, was leaked to the company, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu19151, May 25, 199).

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 00 on June 7, 2006 and KRW 000 on May 17, 2007, respectively. However, on May 17, 2006 and December 29 of the same year, it is insufficient to view that there are special circumstances to deem that there is a difference between the time of deposit and the time of payment as of May 17, 2006, and December 29 of the same year, and that there is no difference between the time of deposit and the time of payment, and that the Plaintiff did not transfer the money received from O to the Plaintiff out of the private company. Furthermore, according to each of the statements in Section 4-2, 3, and 7, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no difference between KRW 2001, KRW 00 on the corporate tax return submitted to the Defendant and KRW 00 on the basis of the fact that there is no difference between KRW 200 on the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim of KRW 100 on the refund and KRW 20.40 on the settlement.

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant disposed of the instant money as a bonus to the Chapter A is lawful.

4. Conclusion

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