Whether the repayment of the representative director's debt on behalf of the representative director constitutes a bonus disposition.

The disposal of bonus to the representative director is legitimate because there is no evidence to prove it as liability of the company against the disposition of imposition by subrogation of the representative director by appropriating the processed loan.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of disposition;

A. On March 30, 1999, the Plaintiff Company entered into accounts as borrowing KRW 800,000 from Nonparty ○○○○○, and around July 2 of the same year, around July 2, 1999, the Plaintiff Company transferred the sales right of KRW 821,621,621,600 among those sold by the Plaintiff Company from ○○○○ Development Corporation and paid KRW 821,621,60 among them, ○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, 943 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On May 18, 2004, the Defendant transferred the right to sell the instant land to the Plaintiff Company to ○○○, thereby paying the Plaintiff’s personal debt instead of the Plaintiff Company’s former representative director, and accordingly, included the sales price in the gross income of the Plaintiff Company, and notified the change in the income amount that the Plaintiff disposed of as a bonus to ○○○ as a bonus.

C. On September 1, 2004, the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing KRW 354,316,790 of the wage and salary income tax for the year 1999 (hereinafter the instant disposition) to the Plaintiff Company, who did not perform the withholding tax liability following the notice of change in the amount of income (hereinafter the Plaintiff Company).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff company's assertion

Around July 2, 1999, the Plaintiff Company borrowed 550 million won of the Company’s management fund from ○○○ on or around 1994, and transferred the right to sell the instant land to ○○○ upon the repayment of the above borrowed money, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case based on the premise of the occurrence of gross income is unreasonable, notwithstanding the fact that the said right to sell ownership was not accrued to the Plaintiff Company.

(b) Related statutes;

(1) Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act

(1) Where any domestic corporation fails to report pursuant to Article 60, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office shall determine the tax base and tax

(2) Disposition of income under Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

In filing a report on the corporate tax base on the income for each business year under the provisions of Article 60, or in determining or revising the corporate tax base under the provisions of Article 66 or 69, the amount included in gross income shall be disposed of as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company and internal reserve, etc. according to the person to whom it reverts,

(3) Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18706 of Feb. 19, 2005)

§ 1106. Disposal of income

(1) The amount included in the calculation of earnings under the provisions of Article 67 of the Act shall be disposed of under the provisions of the following subparagraphs. The same shall apply to non-profit domestic corporations

1. Where the amount included in the calculation of earnings has clearly leaked out of the company, the dividends, bonuses from the disposition of profits, other income, and other outflow from the company under each of the following items according to the person to whom they accrue: Provided, That where the accrual is unclear, it shall be deemed as accrual to the representative (where the total number of stocks held by an officer who is not a minority shareholder under the provisions of Article 87 (2) and persons with a special relationship under the provisions of paragraph (4) of the same Article is 30% or more of the total number of stocks issued or total investment amount of the relevant corporation and the officer actually controls the operation of the relevant corporation, he shall be deemed the representative, and where a corporation which has been exempted from withholding taxes under the provisions of Article 46 (12) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act reports that there is a separate representative among the officers who are stockholders, etc., the reported person shall be the representative, and where there

(b) If the person to whom it belongs is an officer or employee, the bonus to the person to whom it reverts;

C. Determination

The plaintiff company borrowed 50 million won of the company's management fund from ○○○ around 1994. The witness's testimony corresponding thereto is not believed in light of the fact that Ma○○ and Ma○○○○ was the former representative director of the plaintiff company, and the contents of testimony are unclear in the core part of Ma○○○ and 4th degree, and that Ma○○○'s testimony is not clear in the last part of 1994, and that Ma○○○ was repaid around 199, when it is difficult for the plaintiff company to pay the borrowed money in the last few years, it is not easy to recognize it solely based on the fact inquiry about ○○○○ branch head of the ○○○ bank (one hundred and fifty hundred million won borrowed from ○○ around 1994, the fact that Ma○○ or the plaintiff company borrowed 550 million won of the company's management fund from around June 15, 199 to July 16, 199.)

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

4. Conclusion

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