Daejeon District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-104185 (No. 22, 2016)

It is unreasonable that the disposal of any tentatively paid-in-paid property is unreasonable.

The difference between wages actually paid, wages for daily workers, and wages for foreign workers on the account books, etc., shall be excluded from the amount of the recognized bonus, as it is accounts for provisional payment by mistake.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Daejeon High Court-2016-Nu-11702 ( December 01, 2016)

KimA

The Director of the National Tax Service

Part of a parosh

November 10, 2016

December 01, 201

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant, and the incidental costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 141,592,611 on February 7, 2013 against the Plaintiff on February 7, 2013 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. The defendant's disposition of imposition of KRW 141,592,611 against the plaintiff on February 7, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: (a) each of the "witnesss" in the 5th and 10th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of

2. The addition;

A. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment on this issue

(B) BBB of the par value of the Plaintiff holding at the time of reporting the closure of BB BB;

12,50,000 won (=5,000 won x 2,500 shares x 2,500 shares, hereinafter referred to as "the core amount in question") corresponding to the value of 2,500 shares is not out of the company, and thus, it should not be disposed of as a result of the recognition of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's above assertion was included in KRW 504,373,790, which was processed as provisional payment on the balance sheet of BBB 2010, and the defendant's disposal was presumed to have not been made until the date of the report on the closure of BB 3. However, considering the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 2 and No. 3 of BB 2, the amount which was processed as provisional payment on the balance sheet of BB 2010 (the above amount was excluded from the recognition of the plaintiff by the tax judgment) 127,81,913 (the above amount was 70,860, 302, 300, 300, 700, 700, 700, 706, 706, 70, 707, 717, 70, 777, 70, 70, 777, 70, 70, 77, 1, 7, 7, 7, 2.

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment

At the time of the closure of BB BB, the Defendant had remaining 290,79,112 of the retained earnings not disposed of;

As the reversion is unclear, the instant disposition is lawful in view of the fact that the Defendant’s earned surplus already disposed of as a result of the recognition of the Plaintiff in addition to the above 504,373,790 won, which the Defendant originally disposed of as a result of the recognition of the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant's above assertion results in the issue of whether the income tax can be imposed on the plaintiff on the basis of the above unclaimed earned surplus after disposing of it as an admission prize for the plaintiff and adding it to the income tax on the plaintiff. The defendant's disposal of 504,373,790 won, which was processed as provisional payment on the balance sheet of the business year 2010, to the plaintiff, as it is unrelated to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case where the comprehensive income tax on the plaintiff was imposed on the plaintiff on the basis of it. Thus, it is not reasonable to consider whether the above unclaimed earned surplus remains at the time of the closure of BBBBBB, without any need to further examine whether it had been made

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal and the incidental appeal of the plaintiff are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.