The legitimacy of the determination that the expenses are paid to the department solely on the sole basis of the fact that the expenses are paid to the department

The Plaintiff’s punishment and punishment are not derived from the conclusion that the Plaintiff was not immediately added Schlage employees solely on the basis of the management form and size of the said Schlage and the status relationship with the division in the case where the Plaintiff was employed by 16-17 employees in the same business and provided the said father with salaries to his employees. Accordingly, it cannot be readily concluded that the salaries paid to the said father in the said business place are processed expenses.

Articles 20 and 31 of the Income Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu1068 delivered on February 21, 1986

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Plaintiff’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in full view of the whole purport of the pleading, the court below held that the plaintiff omitted sales of 14,161,148 won at the time of the final return on the tax base of the business income of 1981 as to the business income of 1981, and therefore, the defendant is justified in the disposition that was included in the total income. Second, according to the macroscopic evidence, the non-party 1 was the father of the plaintiff who was 60 years old, and the plaintiff was employed by the 16-17 staff and operated the Schlage due to the non-party 2 and the Dong business. Thus, considering all circumstances such as the management form and size of the above Schlage and the status relationship with the above non-party 1 and the plaintiff, it is justified in the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3,600,000 won as necessary expenses.

However, according to the records, if the above evidence Nos. 3 and 4 were to be examined, it was prepared by a tax official belonging to the defendant on the ground of the plaintiff's business year's income amount of 1981, and it was merely an omission in sales of KRW 14,161,148 in the plaintiff's business establishment, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff omitted sales of the above money at the time of the final return on the tax base, but the court below found the above facts only based on these evidence, it is unlawful in finding the value judgment of the evidence, and the following facts are found to be 60 years of age as the plaintiff's father, and the punishment of the plaintiff is concurrently operated by the plaintiff with 16-17 employees, and it cannot be concluded that the above non-party Nos. 1 was not an employee of the plaintiff's business year, and therefore, the above non-party Nos. 1 was not an employee of the plaintiff's business establishment, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that there was any error in logic or incomplete or any error in law.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)