Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu 50078 (Law No. 115, 2015)

Seocho 2014west 3221 (Law No. 15, 2015.20)

Where profits are not entered in the account book, special circumstances about the omission of sales shall have the burden of proof for the plaintiff.

(1) If a corporation fails to enter the proceeds of transfer in the account book even after transferring its assets, the corporation’s assertion of such transfer shall be proved by the corporation, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, and the special circumstances to deem that the proceeds of transfer are not leaked to the company other than the company.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2014Guhap5057 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

AAA et al. and one other

Head of the District Tax Office and one other

April 7, 2016

April 28, 2016

1. All appeals filed by Plaintiff AA against Defendant Samsung Head of the tax office and appeals filed by Plaintiff AA Head of the tax office against Defendant Samsung Head of the tax office (hereinafter “Defendant C”) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On February 1, 2012, the part exceeding KRW 4,801,028,370 of the imposition disposition of KRW 5,821,727,480 of the corporate tax for the business year 2008 against the Plaintiff Samsung AA Co., Ltd. and the part exceeding KRW 4,935,853,710 of the imposition disposition of KRW 2,113,91,870 of the global income tax for the business year 208 imposed by the Head of the tax office against the Plaintiff Samsung T&A on February 20, 2012 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court is as follows, except for the dismissal of some of the decisions of the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

○ The 8th decision of the first instance court is "whether or not the 17th decision is ", etc.".

○ The subject of income of KRW 589 million is not the Plaintiff but the BB and CCC, which is not the Plaintiff.

○ It is called “B and CCC” that “the person to whom the income of KRW 589 million was reserved or that of KRW 589 million was attributed” in Part 17 of the first instance judgment.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the appeal by the plaintiff Samsung CA against the defendant Samsung Head of the tax office and the appeal by the plaintiff Cho Jong Head of the tax office against the defendant Samsung Head of the tax office is dismissed as all are without merit.