Busan District Court 2014Guhap2233 (2015.04.02)

The disposition of this case, which was disposed of as a whole by recognizing the entire amount of outflow to the plaintiff, is legitimate.

(1) The disposition of this case is legitimate, since the construction cost of this case does not affect the corporation's deductible expenses as well as the amount of construction cost to be reduced, not the profit accrued to the plaintiff, and it is reasonable to view that the total amount omitted in sales was reverted to the plaintiff in the year in which the disposition of income was taken.

Article 106 (Disposition of Income)

2015Nu21070 and revocation of the detailed global income and disposition

AA

○ Head of tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2014Guhap2233 Decided April 2, 2015

April 6, 2016

June 1, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of global income tax OOOOO as of April 17, 2013 by the defendant against the plaintiff (the plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of imposition of global income OOOOO as of April 17, 2013 from the first instance court to the year 2007 and reduced the claim as stated in the above claim).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why the court is used in this case is that "OO Construction Co., Ltd." in Section 7, Section 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "OO Facilities of the court of first instance," and that with respect to the allegations that the plaintiff newly added or supplemented in the court of first instance, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the contents of the following 2 to the corresponding parts, and therefore, the plaintiff cites them in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the plaintiff basically repeats the same argument in the court of first instance even in the court of first instance). The reasons why the plaintiff partly supplemented are considered and submitted by the plaintiff, and even if the testimony of Gap No. 27 through 38 (including the number with some supplementary arguments) and witness B of the court of first instance and CCC are examined, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and acceptable

2. The addition;

��제1심 판결문 제3면 제5행 다음에 아래 부분을 추가한다.

(g) On the other hand, the Co., Ltd. filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 13, 2012 by the defendant's objection to the imposition of the corporate tax for the business year of 2007, and the Tax Tribunal accepted part of the claim on May 14, 2013, and rendered a decision that "O0,000 won, which appears to have been paid by the Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. as the cost of construction materials, shall be corrected in deductible expenses, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed." Accordingly, around July 15, 2013, the defendant issued a disposition to partly correct the corporate tax for the Co., Ltd. for the business year of 2007, and the global income tax for the plaintiff also issued a disposition to reduce the amount of the instant tax from OOO to 3OOO won by reducing the amount of the instant tax."

The following judgments are added to the 6th judgment of the first instance court with respect to the "claim for the deduction of an amount equivalent to the cost corresponding to the omission of sale," which the plaintiff disputes particularly with special emphasis at the trial.

In this case, the plaintiff argues that "the plaintiff shall be entitled to deduction from the amount of income disposed of as a representative's bonus, as well as various expenses or expenses, etc., including the plaintiff's labor cost, incurred by the OO facilities in connection with the construction of this case."

However, the recognition and contribution system under Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8831 of Dec. 31, 2007) and Article 106 (1) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619 of Feb. 22, 2008) does not have a ground for actual income to the representative of a corporation, but rather for a specific fact that can be recognized as such to prevent unfair practices under the tax law of a corporation, regardless of its substance, with respect to the specific fact that can be recognized as such act, regardless of its substance.

The purport of this is to consider as bonus (Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2006 Decided September 18, 2008).

49789. In addition, where a corporation fails to enter the amount of sales in its account book despite the fact of sales, the total amount omitted in sales, including the amount equivalent to the sales cost, shall be subject to the disposition of income, unless there are other special circumstances, even if the amount omitted in sales is revealed as well as the corresponding expenses. In this case, the amount equivalent to the cost equivalent to the amount omitted sales, which is the amount equivalent to the amount of the actual omission in sales separately borne by the person to whom the amount omitted sales actually accrue, and which is not appropriated as losses of the corporation, shall not be appropriated as losses

The circumstances, such as “a clear amount,” must be proved by the party asserting it (Supreme Court Decisions 2000Du3726, Jan. 11, 2002; 97Nu19151, May 25, 199; 93Nu7211, Nov. 18, 1994, etc.).

Based on the above legal principle, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction cost, including labor cost, was paid in connection with the instant construction project due to special circumstances to deem that the total omitted sales amount was not leaked out of the company, and that the Plaintiff’s construction cost, etc. was paid in relation to the instant construction project. However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the person who incurred the said construction cost, etc. is not an individual, but an individual, and thus, it cannot be said that the total omitted sales amount was not leaked out of the company.

In addition, considering the overall purport of the argument in the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1, 6-1, and 11, considerable of the construction cost of the plaintiff's assertion is deemed to have already been appropriated as the total loss corresponding to the total revenue of 2007 business year, and the plaintiff's assertion's "cost related to apartment" does not correspond to the cost corresponding to the omitted sales amount due to its content and nature.

Even if the plaintiff's assertion is selected to the effect that the plaintiff's individual has borne the above expenses separately, it is difficult to find out any reason or ground for the plaintiff's individual to specially bear or disburse the construction expenses, etc. in relation to the construction project of this case which is subcontracted in the name of the plaintiff's company in charge of the construction project of this case, and it is difficult to find out any reason or ground for the plaintiff's individual to bear or disburse them with its own funds. It is difficult to see that the plaintiff's statement in subparagraphs 2 through 38 and the witness's testimony alone submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to prove "special circumstances" as mentioned above. Ultimately, the plaintiff's assertion

The following judgments are added to the argument that the plaintiff should add in the trial of the court of first instance with regard to the "the time when the income disposition amount reverts".

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that in relation to this part of the claim, since the construction work of this case was a long-term contract executed throughout 2006 to 2007, it should be imposed differently depending on the degree of completion of construction work, and even though five years have already passed since April 2013, the construction revenue of this case for 2006 has already been imposed, the defendant exceeded it, and the construction revenue of this case, including the construction revenue of this case for 2006, was included in the total amount of the construction revenue of this case for 2007, as the representative of the plaintiff, was recognized as the income for 2007, and thus, the disposition of this case was unlawful in this regard.

In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 8-1, No. 5, and each statement in the court below's reasoning, it is clear that the construction work of this case was completed on May 1, 2006 and around May 30, 2007. However, after the completion of the construction work of this case, the plaintiff's OO facilities did not receive construction payment even after the completion of the construction work of this case. Since September 2007, the plaintiff's office of the order was transferred the registration of ownership transfer of five apartment bonds of this case or the plaintiff's relative's relative, and the construction payment was settled and paid only after the completion of the construction work. According to the above facts, it is clear that the whole amount of the revenue omitted in sales related to the construction of this case is 2007 business year when it actually reverted to the plaintiff or the plaintiff, and so long, it is reasonable to view that the whole period of the profit accrued to the plaintiff's representative due to the omission of sales of the plaintiff facilities of this case as well belongs to 207 business year.

Therefore, on a different premise, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without any need to examine the remainder of the point.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.