logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2012. 10. 17. 선고 2012누10422 판결
횡령금에 대한 소득세 부과와 관련하여 5년의 부과제척기간이 적용됨[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Suwon District Court 201Guhap538 (O2.21. 201)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du1884 (Ob. 08, 2011)

Title

With respect to the imposition of income tax on embezzlement, five years of exclusion period of imposition shall apply.

Summary

(As with the judgment of the court of first instance) It is difficult to view that the exclusion period of five years is applied to the bonus to be reverted to the person concerned, because the representative's embezzlement is revealed in the future embezzlement or the fact of false inclusion in corporate tax, etc., and it is anticipated that the disposition by the tax authorities should take place, so it is difficult to regard the bonus to be reverted to him.

Cases

2012Nu10422 Revocation, etc. of disposition of imposing corporate tax

Plaintiff and appellant

XX Co., Ltd

Defendant, Appellant

Deputy Director of Central Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap5538 Decided February 21, 2012

Conclusion of Pleadings

September 5, 2012

Imposition of Judgment

October 17, 2012

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim, purport of appeal and scope of trial of this court

1. Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's notice of change in the amount of income in the year 2004, in the year 2005, in the year 2006, in the year 000, in the year 2006, in the year 00, in the year 2007, in the year 2007, and in the amount of 000, in the year 2008 shall be revoked.

2. Scope of the judgment of this court;

In the first instance court on February 8, 2010, the Plaintiff claimed revocation of notice of change in income amount of KRW 000 in the year 2002 and KRW 000 in the year 2003, which the Defendant claimed against the Plaintiff on February 8, 2010, and won in favor of the part. Since the Defendant did not appeal, the part is excluded from the scope of adjudication.

Reasons

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.

arrow