Whether personnel expenses were actually paid to South Korea as remuneration for work

The plaintiff has the burden of proving that personnel expenses were paid as compensation for work not to the plaintiff's remaining in the register but to the plaintiff's head of South Korea.

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses) of the Income Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 2,714,00 for the year 200 on April 21, 2006 against the Plaintiff and KRW 3,324,00 for the year 201 on May 1, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. From August 1998 to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff engaged in the processing and processing of softs that enter computer monitors from △△○○○○○○○○○○, by being awarded a contract for processing and supplying them. The Plaintiff paid personnel expenses (including KRW 8,905,00, KRW 900, KRW 9,028,480, KRW 200) to the Plaintiff’s south ○○○○, and included them in necessary expenses, and filed a comprehensive tax return for the year 200 and KRW 201.

B. On April 18, 200, the Defendant revealed the fact that ○○ entered the military, and deemed the 6,678,760 won out of the 2000 personnel expenses of KRW 8,905,00, and the 9,028,480 of the 2001 personnel expenses of KRW 9,028,480 as the processing personnel expenses (hereinafter “the instant personnel expenses”) to be deemed as the necessary expenses, and subsequently excluded the Defendant from the necessary expenses, and issued the instant disposition imposing a revised and notified comprehensive income tax as stated in the purport of the claim.

C. The plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on June 30, 2006 on May 16, 2006, but was dismissed on September 22, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-5-1 to 5, Eul evidence 1, 6-1 and 2-2

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. Plaintiff’s assertion and key issue

(i)The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff, a South-North Korean, worked as an employee of ○○ Company from June 1, 1999, and entered the Gun on April 18, 200, he was not informed of the fact that ○○ entered the Gun to a certified tax accountant who was the reported company, and thus, ○○ continued to work for ○○○ as he did not notify the certified tax accountant who was the reported company, and the actual head of ○○ continued to work for ○○. As such, the instant disposition on imposition based on the premise that the instant personnel expense was the processed personnel expense was unlawful.

(2) The issues of the instant case

Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, since it is clear that the labor cost from the entry into the Gun to the time the Cho Jong-si was the processing labor cost, the instant disposition on this part is lawful. However, the issue of whether the instant labor cost from September 1, 2000, which was after the Cho Jong-si, was the processing labor cost depends on whether the ○○○ actually provided labor at the ○ enterprise.

(b) Related statutes;

Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006)

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses)

(1) In calculating real estate rental income, business income, temporary property income, other income, or forest income, the amount to be included in necessary expenses shall be the sum of expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the current year, which is generally accepted.

(2) If the expenses corresponding to the gross amount of incomes prior to the current year are not appropriated as the necessary expenses before the current year, they shall be considered the necessary expenses.

Article 80 (Settlement and Correction)

(2) If a person who has made a final return on the tax base pursuant to Articles 70 through 72 or 74, falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the superintendent of the district tax office or the director of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the

1. Where an omission or error exists in the contents of return;

C. Determination

(1) In the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of taxation on the grounds of illegality, the tax authority has the burden of proving the legality of taxation and the existence of the taxation requirement. Thus, the tax authority should bear the burden of proving necessary expenses which are the basis of the determination of taxable income. However, the tax authority has the burden of proving that some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer have been falsely appropriated, so long as there are special circumstances such as where it is disputed whether it is real expenses or not and the taxpayer has proved to the extent that the other party to the payment is false, it is easy for the taxpayer to present books and evidence, etc. regarding the fact that such expenses have been exceptionally paid, and it is necessary for the Plaintiff to bear the burden of proving that the taxpayer has the burden of proving that the expenses in this case has been paid in return for his work rather than Cho○, recorded in the account book (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

(2) In this case, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to examine whether ○○ enterprise was paid benefits as alleged by the Plaintiff while ○○ enterprise taking charge of the work of wage captain and employee management, mechanical maintenance, and processed products maintenance, etc. as well as whether ○○ enterprise was familiar with the Plaintiff’s assertion. As to the evidence corresponding thereto, ○○○ enterprise’s evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 2, and 4, and part of ○○○ University’s testimony. Meanwhile, in light of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 5, 6, 1 through 6, 1 and 6’s testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings in some testimony of ○○○○○○ apartment, ○○○○ apartment, which is located in ○○○○ enterprise, and there is no other evidence that ○○○ University directly prepared the Plaintiff’s wage ledger in the form of evidence No. 1, 200.

(3) Therefore, it is legitimate for the Defendant to impose the instant disposition by excluding the instant personnel expenses from necessary expenses. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be rejected as it is without merit, and it shall be decided as per Disposition.