Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Guhap-70676 (Law No. 21, 2016)

Seocho 2014west 1536 (No. 11, 2015)

Appropriateness of the limit of compensation for executive officers resolved at a special general meeting

(As with the judgment of the first instance court) Where a corporation has paid bonuses to executive officers in excess of the amount paid according to the standards for payment of benefits determined by the articles of incorporation, general meeting of shareholders or resolution of directors, such excess amount shall not be included in the calculation of losses.

Articles 19 and 26 of the Corporate Tax Act

2016Nu43840 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax

○ Stock Company

○ Head of tax office

October 12, 2016

October 26, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part of the disposition of the defendant on October 0, 200 on the imposition of corporate tax (including additional tax) for the plaintiff on 2000 business year, which exceeds KRW 00,000, and the imposition of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the business year 2000, which exceeds KRW 00,000, and the imposition of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the business year 200, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial contents of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 6th 1st 1st 1st 10th 1st 10th 1st 1st 1st 3th 1st 1st 3th 1st 3th 2th 1st 3th 1st 3th 2th 1st 3th 3th 1st 1st

○ 6th 8th 7th 8th 6th 6th 8th 00th 00th 1 to 9th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 20

From October 200 to October 200, the general meeting of shareholders has been held on a regular basis as a result of the preparation of the minutes of a special meeting of shareholders (No. 00 certificates, No. 00 certificates, No. 1). There are no objective grounds to deem that there was a practice of replacing the general meeting of shareholders with the resolution of the board of directors and the procedures of approving and approving AAA after 200, and the recognition of such a practice is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the resolution of the special meeting of shareholders was to recognize the contents of the special meeting of shareholders on October 00, 200 from the resolution of the special meeting of shareholders around October 200 to the special meeting of shareholders on or after 200.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.