Seoul High Court 2014Nu56071 (Seoul High Court 2015.03.26)

If the private use of an individual omitted in the sale of a corporation and the formation of property are arbitrarily disbursed, the personal account shall not be deemed a borrowed account of the corporation.

The Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a borrowed account of a legal entity because the Plaintiff had already used considerable funds for personal purposes beyond the control and management of the legal entity, and even if some funds were transferred to the account in the name of the legal entity after the date of establishment of the tax liability, it does not affect the tax liability already incurred.

2015du4135 Global income and revocation of such disposition

Park AA

○ Head of tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu56071 Decided March 26, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence. ① The Plaintiff opened each of the instant accounts in its own name, and transferred most of the local operating expenses of A, a local corporation A, its representative director, from 2006 to 2010, to the Republic of Korea through each of the instant accounts; ② the Plaintiff directly manages each of the instant accounts and received approximately 40.9% of the aforementioned remittance amount for personal purposes; ③ the Plaintiff used the balance of the said remittance amount for 0.9% for the instant account; ③ the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have been subject to control or control of ○○○○○○ Bank and △△△△ Bank, and the Plaintiff could not open each of the instant accounts under the name of ○○○○○○ Bank, which was established in the name of the Plaintiff, from 2006 to 2010, in view of the legal principles as to the account transfer of ○○○○ Account. However, the Plaintiff did not have any influence on each of the instant accounts under the name of ○○○○○ Bank.

2. Judgment on the third ground for appeal

After comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff submitted data according to the exercise of the authority of inquiry and inspection by the Board of Audit and Inspection, and rather, the audit conducted by the Board of Audit and Inspection from January 26, 2012 to February 22, 2012 is distinct from the tax investigation conducted by the ○○ regional tax office, which is an institution operating audit conducted by the ○○ regional tax office with respect to the taxpayer or related persons, which is an exercise of the authority of inquiry and inspection conducted by

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on

3. Judgment on ground of appeal No. 4

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds for failing to file and pay the comprehensive income tax on the balance of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the justifiable grounds for exempting penalty

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.