Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap2818 ( October 11, 2013)

Loans and building acquisition costs omitted from the accounts of the plaintiff are returned to the plaintiff company, and they are denied as the costs of the plaintiff company and recognized as outflow from the company.

Of the expenses for building acquisition, the amount borrowed from the bank, interest expenses and acquisition expenses shall be collected by the representative's personal account, and the accounting of the corporation shall be included in the gross income, and the disposition of the representative

2013Nu30461 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax, etc.

AAA ment, Inc.

The director of the tax office.

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap2818 decided October 11, 2013

May 27, 2014

June 10, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the plaintiff on June 1, 2010 that exceeds the OOOO members in the imposition of corporate tax for the year 2006, the portion exceeding the OOO members in the notice of change of income amount for the year 2006, the portion exceeding the OO members in the notice of change of income amount for the bonus disposal for the year 2007, and the portion exceeding the OO members in the notice of change of income amount for the bonus disposal for the year 2008, and the portion exceeding the OO members in the notice of change of income amount for the bonus disposal for the year 208.

2. Purport of appeal

In the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked, and the defendant shall revoke each of the above parts of the notice of change of income amount of the bonus disposalOOOOO in 2006 that belongs to the plaintiff on June 1, 2010, exceeding the OOOOOO in the notice of change of income amount of the 2007 bonus disposalOOOOOOOO in the notice of change of income amount of the 2007 bonus disposalOOOOO, and exceeding the OOOO in the notice of change of income amount of the 208 bonus disposalOOOO

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

On June 1, 2010, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the portion exceeding the OOO won among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the year 2006 imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2010, the portion exceeding the OOO won among the notice of change of the income amount for the year 2006, the portion exceeding the OO personnel among the notice of change of the income amount for the bonus disposal for the year 2007, the portion exceeding the OO personnel among the notice of change of the income amount for the bonus disposal for the year 2008, the portion exceeding the OO personnel among the notice of change of the income amount for the bonus disposal for the year 2008, and the first instance court requested revocation of the portion exceeding the OO personnel among the notice of change of the income amount for the bonus disposal for the year 208. The remainder of the appeal is limited to the appeal filed by the Plaintiff on June 1, 2010.

2. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates a private teaching institute, etc. in OO-dong O-dong O-dong 52-3.

"1) On April 24, 2006, this representative director of the Plaintiff: (a) lent 2000 won to the private account of the representative director on April 26, 2006; (b) transferred 20000 won to the private account of the Plaintiff; (c) transferred 7000 won and 7000 won and 700 won and 2000 won and 7000 won and 700 won and 7000 won and 700 won and 700 won and 2000 won and 700 won and 2000 won and 70 O and 700 won and 200 won and 700 won and 200 won and 200 won and 200 won and 2000 won and 00 won and 2000 won and 200 won and 200 O and 200 won and 200 won and 200 won and 200.

B. From March 15, 2010 to May 3, 2010, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office rendered a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the data on taxation. The Defendant, on June 1, 2010, notified the Plaintiff of the corporate tax on the omitted portion (OOOO for the business year 2006, OOOOOOO for the business year 2007, OOOOOO for the business year 2008, OOOOOO for the business year 2008, 2008, 2008, OOOOOOO for the business year 206, 2007, OOOOO for the bonus for the business year 207, 2007, OOOOOO for the business year 208, 201, 2005, 2015, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 11 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the notice disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that some of the notification dispositions of this case are illegal for the following reasons.

1) Violation of bonus disposition related to the instant money 1

This case’s one money was temporarily used from April 26, 2006 to October 26, 2006 by this case’s representative, but on July 11, 2007, the Plaintiff deposited and returned the amount to the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff. Even if the Plaintiff did not do so, it is unlawful that the Defendant deemed that it was out of the company, even though it was a bonus from this case’s one money to the director of the short-term loan and the cash ledger as of January 1, 2007, entered D bank loans in the president of the cash ledger and the cash ledger as of January 1, 2007, and the representative director entered in the cash ledger as the cash ledger, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it was out of the company, and that it was a bonus from this case’s one money.

2) Violation of bonus disposition related to the interest paid in this case

The interest paid in the instant case belongs to theCC bank and the D bank, not the BB, and since the Defendant deemed the instant one to be out of the company and disposed of as bonus, as long as the disposition of income related to the instant one has been terminated, the obligor against the loan is not the BB, but the Plaintiff and the BB is not a person who uses assets unrelated to the business, and therefore the interest paid in the instant case cannot be deemed as the bonus subject to the bonus disposition, it is unlawful for the Defendant to make the representative bonus disposition.

(iii)an illegality of bonus disposition related to CE remittance;

"B, the representative director of the Plaintiff, used OO on July 13, 2007 and July 18, 2007 by allowing E to temporarily transfer OOB to the personal account of B, but on July 30, 2007, deposited OOB to the Plaintiff's account and returned OB on July 30, 2007, the OB cannot be deemed to be a voluntary use of OB from among the funds transferred E. However, it is unlawful to take the disposition of the representative bonus for the 2 amount."

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) Of the instant 1 money, the OOO officers were deposited into the securities account of this BB, and the remainder was deposited into the financial account of this BB. On July 11, 2007, this B deposited the OO officers into the Plaintiff’s account, and the Plaintiff accounted for the said OO officers as the receipts for this BB.

2) On July 30, 2007, this B transferred the OOE to the Plaintiff’s account, and the Plaintiff accounted for the said OOE as a provisional deposit for this BB.

3) The Plaintiff’s provisional collection ledger of 2007 frequently stated that the occurrence of provisional collection and anti-dumping against the representative director BB, which is frequently carried out every month, is indicated, and the balance as of December 31, 2007 is listed as OOO.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7 through 10, 22, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the bonus disposition related to the money of this case is unlawful

Even if a juristic person, by appropriating the money to be collected from the representative director in the provisional deposit account, accounts have been made by entering the other party cash, once the juristic person entered in the provisional deposit account, if the contents of the provisional deposit account were to be entered in short-term loan transactions from the representative director, and it is found that such transactions are obligations to be counter-contributed to the representative director, the provisional deposit transactions do not entail any increase in the net assets of the juristic person and are irrelevant to the profits or expenses of the juristic person. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as where the provisional deposit obligations are not scheduled to be counter-contributed, the amount to be collected from the representative director shall be deemed to have already been leaked out, and thus, be deemed to have been reverted to the representative director, who is the other party to the above provisional deposit transactions (see Supreme Court Decision 200DuO00, Jan. 11, 2002).

(5) It is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff had no intent to receive KRW 100,000 from KRW 20,000,000,000,000 from KRW 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 1,000,000,000 won and KRW 2,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 1,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 2,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 1,00,000,000,00 won and KRW 2,00,00,000,00 were 7,00,000,000,000,00 won and KRW 2,00,00,00,00.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2) Violation of bonus disposition related to interest on the instant money 1

On April 24, 2006, 2006, 1) the Plaintiff’s representative director and 2) the following circumstances were revealed by adding the above evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings. (i) The Plaintiff’s representative director and 2) the Plaintiff’s loans from the CC bank under the name of the Plaintiff, 4.5. 10, 2006, 206, 1) the Plaintiff received OO transfer of the instant 1 money from NA bank to the representative director’s personal account of BB, etc. for several times since then, 2) the Plaintiff appears to have used B as a securities transaction or other personal purpose; and (ii) in light of the correction of each loan, the time of remittance, amount of remittance, and the nature of the account transferred, it does not appear that the Plaintiff’s representative director and 2) was given a loan for the Plaintiff’s business (the Plaintiff’s interest payment for the purpose of acquiring a building to O, 3).

Therefore, the defendant's disposal of the representative bonus as to the interest paid in this case is just, and it is not reasonable to assert this part of the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise.

(iii)an illegality of bonus disposition related to CE remittance;

In addition to the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings, the following circumstances can be revealed.

(A) Although EE transfers OB to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not have any adequate accounting process corresponding thereto [the Plaintiff alleged that the above OB had no accounting record of Gap's KRW 12 and 16 as evidence. However, EE transferred OB to the accounts of this case on July 13, 2007. The Plaintiff stated that Gap's 12 and 16 was paid OB as provisional payment, and it is difficult to conclude that the above 2OB had no accounting record of this case's 12 and 16 OB as evidence, and that there was no other evidence that the 20OB had no accounting record of this case's 12 and 16 OB as evidence, and that there was no other evidence that the 2000 OB had no accounting record of this case's 12 and 16 OB. It is difficult to conclude that there was no other evidence that the 2000 OB had no accounting record of this case's account record as evidence.

D) The Plaintiff asserted that this BB had no intention to receive the above OOO won at the beginning of the AB and did not actually receive the refund. However, even if the amount (OOO won) transferred from the FF Bank account (Evidence 18) of this B in 2007 to the Plaintiff’s account exceeds the amount transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the BB account (OO won) from the Plaintiff’s account, it is difficult to readily conclude that this BB had no intention to receive the above OOO won or had no intention to receive the first refund in 2007, it is difficult to conclude that there was no monetary transaction other than the transaction details of evidence 18 between the Plaintiff and B in 207.

In full view of the above circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff recovered the instant 2 money from this BB, and it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff arbitrarily used the money transferred by EE. Therefore, the Defendant’s notice of change in the amount of income is lawful.

Therefore, this part of the prior plaintiff's assertion is without merit on different premises.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.