In the event that an employee of a corporation embezzleds income belonging to the corporation, the validity of the recognition and contribution disposition for the employee (= null and void)

According to Article 32 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 94-2 (1) 1 (b) and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 21 (1) 1 (c) of the Income Tax Act, if the person to whom the amount to be included in the calculation of the gross income is an employee of a corporation, it shall be deemed as a bonus if the amount to be included in the calculation of the gross income is the employee of the corporation, and accordingly, the amount to be included in the calculation of the gross income is deemed as a bonus if the amount to be included in the calculation of the gross income is not leaked to the employee of the corporation, and there is no room to regard it as a bonus under the premise that the amount to be included in the calculation of the gross income is attributed to the employee of the corporation. Thus, in cases where a corporation suffers losses due to embezzlement of the income to the employee of the corporation, the corporation acquires the right to claim compensation for damages equivalent to the amount of embezzlement against the embezzlement, and as such,

Article 94-2 of the Enforcement Decree

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Korea

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 2,041,696,440 won with 5% per annum from January 11, 1989 to December 9, 1991, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The plaintiff company (formerly identical stock company) is a corporation for the purpose of operation of steel and steel processing business, etc., and filed a voluntary declaration within the prescribed period of both corporate tax, defense tax and value-added tax in 1985 and 1986. However, as a result of the on-site investigation conducted on the ground that the plaintiff company was not subject to tax investigation for five or more years in 1988, the non-party 4 (the representative director from July 1, 1983 to December 27, 1986) who was the representative of the plaintiff company (the non-party 4) who was the representative director of the plaintiff company (the non-party 4) was supplied, cut off the non-party 4 (the non-party 1) from the date of production and processed and entered the non-party 4 (the non-party 1) into the 9-party 2-party 2-party 1-party 3-party 1-party 2-party 1-party 3-party 1-party 2-party 1-party 3- its monthly amount.

2. Article 32 and Article 94-2 (1) 1 (b) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that if it is clear that the amount included in gross income has been leaked out of the company, it shall be a bonus to the employer if it is an employee, and Article 21 (1) 1 (c) of the Income Tax Act provides that the amount included in gross income shall be an internal reserve if it is not leaked out of the company. According to Article 21 (1) 1 (c) of the Income Tax Act provides that the amount disposed of as bonus under the Corporate Tax Act shall be Class A earned income. Accordingly, if the person to whom it belongs is an employee of the corporation, it shall be deemed as bonus if the amount included in gross income is deemed to exist in the calculation of gross income. Since the amount included in gross income is not leaked out of gross income, it shall be deemed that there is no room for the company to view that the amount is attributed to the employee of the corporation as a bonus from the company, which shall be deemed to be a considerable amount to be paid to the plaintiff 1 as an employee.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act Article 89 as to the burden of litigation cost, and Article 199 of the provisional execution declaration as to the provisional execution.

Judges Guil-don (Presiding Judge)