Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-8247 ( November 04, 2014)

Seocho 2013west 011 (O2, 2014)

The fictitious payment of stock price is a realistic payment due to the transfer of money, and there is no reference to the transfer of provisional payment, a representative director, under the stock transfer contract.

Although the issue is that the provisional payment was appropriated in the process of making a lump sum payment, it cannot be deemed that the non-party corporation did not hold the provisional payment of this case, and since there is no evidence to deem that the provisional payment was succeeded, it is reasonable to view that the provisional payment was reverted to the Plaintiff, a person with a special relationship, as it is in fact renounced the collection of provisional payment

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

2014Nu7039 global income and revocation of disposition

Park AA

The director of the tax office.

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap8247 decided November 4, 2014

April 23, 2015

May 14, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The global income tax for the year 2008 owed to the Plaintiff on June 11, 2012 by the Defendant

The imposition of KRW 1,067,243,470 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and thus, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

Then, the following was added to the phrase “it is reasonable to deem that the property was reverted” from No. 5 to No. 17:

(c)

[D Engineering lost D Engineering in the claim of provisional payment against the plaintiff (Evidence 2 of this case) but res judicata effect of the above civil judgment cannot be deemed to affect the other party and the case. The above civil judgment cannot be deemed to include the purport that the provisional payment of this case has already become impossible to recover during that reason, and it cannot be deemed to be a violation of the above judgment and it cannot be said that there is a justifiable reason not to recover or recover the provisional payment of this case based on the above civil judgment, and it cannot be viewed as a case objectively proved that there is a justifiable reason not to recover the provisional payment of this case or that it has to be recovered. The plaintiff's assertion to the other purport cannot be accepted. Meanwhile, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Do7645 Decided June 17, 2004 and Supreme Court Decision 2007Du2323 Decided November 13, 2008, which is invoked by the plaintiff, and it cannot be viewed as being affected by the above judgment in this case.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.