Seocho 2013west 1556

The provisional payment of this case cannot be deemed to have become final and conclusive to make it impossible to recover due to a dispute (State's succession)

In light of the fact that the non-party corporation made an effort to recover claims against the plaintiff and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party corporation, the judgment against the plaintiff became final and conclusive, and the fact that the lawsuit claiming the agreed amount is pending between the plaintiff and the CCC, it cannot be deemed that the provisional payment of this case was impossible to recover due to the litigation, and therefore it is legitimate to include the provisional payment of this case and the recognition interest

Articles 14, 56, 61, and 66 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Articles 15, 28, and 52 of the Corporate Tax Act other than those

2014Guhap5088 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing income tax

OO

OOO, OO-dong OO-ho (O-dong, O-style)

Attorney OOO-O

Law Firm OO, Attorney OO

O Head of tax office

Litigation Performers OO

x.x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.x.

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for revocation of the imposition of global income tax for x year x year x, shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

xx.x.x.x. that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff, including the global income taxO,OO, and OOO won, the global income taxO, OO, and OO(including the additional tax), the global income taxO, OO, and the global income taxO,OO, andOO(including the additional tax) in 209.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with X.x.x.x.x. CCC, and was a joint representative director of BB Housing Industry (hereinafter “BB Housing”). The Plaintiff agreed to the ratio of shares in BB Housing to Plaintiff 00% and CCC 00%, considering the investment amount up to the time of X.x.x.x.x.x.x.x., the Plaintiff agreed to the ratio of shares in BB Housing to Plaintiff 00% and cCC.

B. Since X.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x, the following real estate was purchased (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") and the registration of ownership transfer cannot be made due to the issuance of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland, the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the name of the plaintiff on each date indicated in the "registration date". BB house completed the registration of ownership transfer claim in the name of B B house on each date indicated in the "Provisional Registration Date" to prevent the voluntary disposal of the real estate of this case. Meanwhile, BB house dealt with KRW 0,000,000 as an advance payment account on the account book.

Real estate

Seller

The date of sales contract

Date of registration;

Provisional Registration Date

OOOOO-O Nos.

GuO

x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.

OOOOO-O Nos.

GuO

x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.

OO-O-2 out of 1/2

MaO

MaO

x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.

OOOOO-O Nos.

EO

x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.

OOOOO-O Nos.

JO

YO

x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.

OOOOO-O Nos.

GuO

x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.

OOOO-O o-O

JO

x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.

x.x.x.x.x.

C. x.x.x. CCC is to liquidate the same business relationship, and the Plaintiff made a division agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant division agreement”) as follows:

BB Housing Joint Representatives CCC and the Plaintiff agree to divide the BB housing units, which were operated on the basis of the x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x., respectively, as follows: Provided, That only the housing units of the EE branch are in the process of litigation, the operation management, distribution and termination will be made by maintaining the current state of shares (CCC 00%, Plaintiff 00%, and Plaintiff 00%).

- - The following:

1. Both parties shall have no conflict of interests;

A. The CCC has been operating and managing the Chinese O golf course business by maintaining the BB housing name in the present state;

B. The Plaintiff is expected to divide and terminate the project with the urban development project with cash 00,000,000 and OOOO-dong (the Plaintiff’s individual right is registered on the sole basis of convenience).

2.With respect to the preceding paragraph, both parties may not reverbiate, and in no case a demand and request may be additionally made.

3. Both parties shall separately manage all accounts, such as the payment of taxes and public charges incurred in each business portion under paragraph (1), and tax matters, but if they inflict a loss on BB house, the amount of the loss shall be deducted from the settlement of accounts of the racing business and paid to the other party.

D. Pursuant to the instant division agreement, the house B was paid KRW x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.00,000,00 each to the Plaintiff, and the cancellation of the provisional registration in the name of BB house, which was completed on the instant real estate on October 00, 000. The Plaintiff retired from the co-representative director of the xx.x.x.x.x.x.x. BB house.

E. B’s house was appropriated as advance payment in accordance with the liquidation of partnership with the Plaintiff around that time, and KRW 00,000,000,000 as the purchase fund of the instant real estate and KRW 000,000 paid in cash to the Plaintiff as the provisional payment for the Plaintiff, or the short-term bonds for shareholders, executives, and employees (hereinafter “the instant provisional payment”). At the annual interest rate of 00,000,000, the provisional payment was calculated as the interest rate of 00,000,000 in the business year of 00,000 as the attempted interest rate of 0% per annum.

F. BB house was disposed of as bad debts of x.x.x.x.x. the provisional payment to the Plaintiff or 0,000,000,000,000, which was appropriated as short-term bonds of shareholders, officers and employees.

G. (1) (1) The director of the DDR lent, without a repayment agreement, the amount that is appropriated as the provisional payment to the plaintiff on the account book or the amount that is appropriated as the short-term credit of shareholders, executives, employees, and short-term employees on the account book, to the plaintiff. The reason behind the xxxxxxx business year, the xxxxxxx business year, the xxxxxxx business year,00,000,000 as the bonus to the plaintiff, and the BB house and the plaintiff notified the change in the income amount to the plaintiff.

(2) The Plaintiff filed a revised return on the x.x.x.x.x.x. the Plaintiff did not pay the xx year to the xxx. However, as indicated below, the Plaintiff filed a revised return on the xx year to the xxx.

(unit: source)

Income-generating Place

Income Earners

Taxation

Year

recognized contributions

Amount of notice

Original Declaration

Revenue amount

Plaintiff’s revised declaration

Tax Base

Amount of payable tax

BB Housing

Xxx

00,000,000

00,000,000

00,000,000

00,000,000

Xxx

00,000,000

00,000,000

00,000,000

00,000,000

Xxx

0,000,000,000

0,000,000

00,000,000

00,000,000

* The original Defendant first notified the bonus disposition amount of 0,00,000,000 from the bonus disposition amount of x.x year x year x year x, but later cancelled the amount of 0,000,000 (=0,000,000 - 0,000,000,000,000).

As a result, the Defendant Tax Office corrected and notified xx.x.x.x.x.x year global income tax (including additional tax), 00,000,000 global income tax forxx year, xxx year global income tax (including additional tax), 00,000,000 global income tax forxx year, and xxx year global income tax (including additional tax).

H. The Plaintiff filed an objection, but was dismissed by the Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, X.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x. The Plaintiff was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal.

x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x, the Defendant cancelled the notice of change in income amount of 0,000,000 won from the bonus disposal amount of the notice of change in income amount of 0,000,000 won, the Defendant corrected the total income tax of xxx year to 0,000 won (including the penalty tax). Accordingly, the disposition of imposition of the global income tax on the Plaintiff from xxx year to xx year became as listed below.

(unit: source)

Income;

Sources of Origin

Income Earners

Taxation

Year

recognized contributions

Amount of notice

Initial Declaration

Revenue amount

Disposition by Defendant

Correction

Revenue amount

Increase or decrease

Additional

Notice Tax Amount

OOO

Industry

(State)

OO

Xxx

00,000,000

00,000,000

00,000,000

00,000,000

00,000,000

Xxx

00,000,000

00,000,000

00,000,000

00,000,000

00,000,000

Xxx

00,000,000

0,000,000

00,000,000

00,000,000

0,000,000

(j) The defendant tax office was newly established at xx.x.x., and the plaintiff's place of residence was placed under the jurisdiction of the plaintiff. [Grounds for recognition] The facts that there is no dispute over the plaintiff's place of residence, Gap's evidence 1-1, 2, 2-3-1, 3, 5, 4, 7, 2-1 through 4, 3, 4, 4-1 through 4, 3, 4-1 through 4 of the evidence No. 2, and 4-1 through 4 of the evidence No. 2, the whole purport of the pleadings

2. The legality (ex officio determination) of a lawsuit on the claim to revoke the imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on global incomex year x year x year x

A. As a matter of principle, a taxpayer’s duty to pay taxes is specifically determined by way of filing a tax base and tax amount on his/her own and filing a return. Therefore, even if the tax authority imposed additional tax on the amount of tax reported by him/her on the ground that he/she does not pay the said tax, this is merely a combined disposition of collection ordering performance of the tax obligation finalized by filing a return, and a disposition of imposition and collection of additional tax thereon, and a disposition of collection thereof (see Supreme Court Decisions 2013Du19066, Feb. 13, 2014; 2003Du880, Sept. 3, 2004).

B. With respect to the imposition of global income tax for xx year, the Plaintiff filed a revised return on the amount of KRW 00,000,000,000, including the amount of recognized contribution disposition for global income tax, and the Plaintiff did not pay the global income tax accordingly. Accordingly, the Defendant can be found to have dispatched a tax notice of KRW 00,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

As above, since global income tax is a tax return method, the Plaintiff’s tax liability becomes final and conclusive upon the Plaintiff’s revised return. Therefore, since the portion relating to the principal tax inxx year falls under the disposition of collection ordering the payment of the determined amount of tax based on the revised return, the lawsuit seeking revocation is unlawful as it is subject to a disposition that does not exist (i.e., the reduction of global income tax by the notice of tax payment, which can be deemed as a reduction of the amount of tax based on the notice of tax payment, and thus, the decision of correction cannot be subject to an appeal litigation, and thus, is also unlawful.

C. As additional tax is imposed on the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the global income tax, additional tax for the xx year gross income tax, 0,000,000, which is notified together on the notice of tax payment, may be sought for revocation thereof. Furthermore, as global income tax for the xx year is higher than that for the Plaintiff’s revised return, it can be deemed that a disposition to correct the amount has been made. If a disposition to correct the amount of tax is taken, the initial return, etc. is absorption the disposition to correct the amount of tax, and the taxpayer can contest the disposition to correct the amount of tax (xx year income tax was determined again, and the initial disposition to correct the amount of tax was the subject of appeal). As such, a request to revoke the global income tax for the xx year, xxx year, is lawful [hereinafter referred to as xxxxxx; xxx year global income tax for additional income tax for the xxx year year period, x.x. x (including additional tax) and the additional tax for the x year x yearx year).

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff filed an objection to xx.x.x year and xx year with the lapse of 90 days from the date on which the notice of tax payment of global income tax was served, and xx.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x., among the instant lawsuit, the part on which the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the disposition of global income tax assessment for xxx year and xx year, is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "Any administrative litigation against any disposition under tax-related Acts shall not be filed without a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon shall not be filed." Thus, unlike the discretionary transfer principle of administrative appeals that applies to general administrative litigation, any administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition shall be subject to the requisite transfer principle that must undergo a request for examination or adjudgment as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes. In this case, a request for examination or adjudgment shall be lawful. Thus, if a request for examination or adjudgment is unlawful due to the lapse of the filing period, such administrative litigation cannot be deemed as having undergone the necessary transfer procedure as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8091, Jun. 25, 191).

(2) In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the Evidence No. 1, B, GG, the Plaintiff’s spouse, received a tax payment notice of xx.x.x.xx and xx year global income tax, and the fact that xx.x.x.x.x. and the date of receipt is affixed on the bottom of the Plaintiff’s written objection submitted by the Plaintiff.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-2, and 7 of the evidence Nos. 1-2 and 7, the filing date of the written objection is xx.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x., the processing department: Seoul Office Review Division, the civil petitioner: and the public petitioner: respectively; on the notice of the objection, the term "accountingx.x.x.x.x.x. on behalf of the plaintiff" in the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the plaintiff can be deemed to have lawfully transmitted the written objection to the competent office, as it appears that the plaintiff submitted the written objection to xx.x.x.x.x.x.x."

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant split agreement is based on the premise that the Plaintiff transfers BB house stocks owned by the Plaintiff to CCC in order to liquidate the partnership relationship. Therefore, its substance constitutes a stock transfer agreement between the Plaintiff and CCC, the fact that the Plaintiff did not transfer the shares after the split agreement was not settled pursuant to the instant split agreement, CC paid the instant provisional payment from CCC to its funds, and CC was liable for the Defendant’s debt to BB house, which led the Plaintiff to unilaterally account for the Plaintiff’s temporary payment to conceal the instant provisional payment, and “the Plaintiff requested that the Plaintiff appropriate the instant provisional payment as BB house loan” as x.x. of x. of x. of x. of x. of x. of x. of x. of x. of x. of this case, the instant provisional payment constitutes a stock transfer price, and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff borrowed the instant provisional payment from BB house.

(2) Even if the instant provisional payment is deemed a short-term loan, since it is a stock transferee, the instant provisional payment is deemed a stock transferee, and thus, the instant disposition taken by deeming the Plaintiff as the owner is unlawful against the principle of substantial taxation.

(3) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the agreed amount following the completion of racing business based on the instant division agreement with CCC and continued the appellate court. Therefore, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful since it falls under the proviso to Article 11 subparagraph 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22035, Feb. 18, 2010) and Article 6-2 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Rule (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 138, Mar. 31, 2010).

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1)x.x.x.x.x.x. the contents of the meeting minutes of the Council of Directors are as follows:

Time:x.x.x.x.x. 00 A.M. 00:00

Attendance: Ten directors from among the total number of directors;

The representative director of the Speaker pro tempore has attended the meeting of the Speaker and has reached the statutory chief as above, so this meeting shall be duly established and shall declare the opening of the meeting.

Within subparagraph 1: Cases concerning the promotion of housing projects in the OO-dong project site;

The Speaker purchased the instant land at KRW 0,000,000,000 for the company's capital, explain that there is a project site registered in the name of the representative director, and sought an opinion on the continuation of the housing construction project, and approved that the project will be suspended.

Within subparagraph 2: Cases concerning the disposal of housing project sites;

The Speaker explained that the OO project site was decided not to implement the project in the name of the company, and sought opinions on the future disposal of the project site. The present project site approved that the representative director will move advance payment of KRW 0,000,000,000 invested by the company to the plaintiff (the termination of the current project site) and the price will be recovered after the completion of the plaintiff's personal project, but the company will pay 0% interest per annum to the company by the collection date of the price.

Plaintiff’s representative director

CCC representative director

Directors HH

(2) From xxx to 00,000 shares of BB were owned (share ratio 00%) and BB houses were changed to 0.00% by offering capital increase in the year of 0000. CCC held 00,000 shares of BB houses (share ratio 00%), but it became 00,000 shares of xxx year shares (share ratio 00,000 shares) through stock acquisition and capital increase with stock increase.

(3) Relevant judgment

(A) The BB house sent to the Plaintiff a statement of claims and obligations regarding the instant provisional payments treated as “short-term loans for shareholders, executives, and employees” through the OO accounting corporation, an external accounting auditor, and the Plaintiff did not answer.

BB house x.x.x. x. “The instant division agreement brings KRW 00 million in cash, and exercises the right to the instant land, but the instant land value is treated as shareholder loans on the financial statements. However, at the time of external audit and inspection of accounts, the instant land value is treated as shareholder loans. However, it did not cooperate in business for several years, and the shareholder loan interest interest rate is growing every year.xxx.x.x.x.x., the notice that “The method of repayment for loans will be presented by the date of the instant division agreement.”

(B) x.x.x. x. x. x. x. x. x. Seoul Central District Court (2012Gahap61730) filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of default on obligations on the ground that the Plaintiff did not agree that the instant provisional payment was made by settling accounts for CCC and the instant provisional payment to the Plaintiff as the provisional payment, and that there was no obligation to pay the agreed amount to pay the corporate tax on the increase in BB house arising from the accounts for the instant provisional payment. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of default on obligations on the ground that “The Plaintiff and BB house are accounts for short-term loans for shareholders, executives, employees, and short-term loans, and that there was an implicit agreement between the Plaintiff and B on the implementation of the instant provisional payment agreement with the Plaintiff to bear the taxes to be imposed on BB house x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. 201).

(C) x.x.x.x. x. x. x. Seoul Central District Court (2013Gahap70915) filed a lawsuit seeking injunction against CCC on the ground that “The Plaintiff has the obligation to pay for the disposal of BB housing assets related to racing business in accordance with the instant division agreement”, and xx.x.x.x.x.x.x. is rendered a judgment with some seal from the above court. Accordingly, CCC appealed appealed, and currently in the appellate trial (Seoul High Court 2014Na17529).

(4) In the business year X, xx, xx, xxx, xxx, the instant provisional payment was not imposed on the amount equivalent to the interest on short-term credit of shareholders, executives, and employees on the ground of the loss. However, in the business year xx, corporate tax was imposed on the amount equivalent to the recognized interest due to the occurrence of profit in the business year xx.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 4-5, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. As to the non-business director's provisional payment and the wrongful calculation division

(1) Article 28(1)4(b) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) and Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22035, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act") provide that "the interest on loans paid by a corporation to a person with a special relationship under Article 52(1) of the Corporate Tax Act without relation to the business of the corporation shall not be included in deductible expenses." Article 52(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "where it is deemed that the tax burden on the corporation's income has been unjustly reduced due to a transaction with a person with a special relationship under the Presidential Decree, it shall be included in gross income by deeming it as a wrongful calculation (Article 88(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act) and where assets are purchased without profit (Article 28(2)2) or subparagraph 4) of the Act.

"Calculation of wrongful acts" means the calculation of a taxpayer's act of reducing or excluding the burden of taxes incurred when a taxpayer takes a normal and reasonable transaction form, such as a circumventing act, multi-stage act, or any other abnormal transaction form, without a reasonable transaction form. The purport of Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides for the denial of wrongful calculation, is to ensure fairness in taxation and prevent tax avoidance by imposing a tax by deeming that a taxpayer was objectively reasonable in terms of tax law, when deeming that a transaction with a corporation and a related party has neglected economic rationality by an abuse under the pretext of all the forms of transactions under each subparagraph of Article 88 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du20127, Apr. 10, 2014).

(2) Considering the following circumstances, the provisional payment of this case is the amount used without permission by the Plaintiff and CCC, which is a controlling shareholder, and the amount to be returned to BB housing due to its nature. Thus, it constitutes a “loan amount of funds irrelevant to the business of the pertinent corporation” under Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and it constitutes an object of wrongful calculation, as the loan was lent without interest. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion asserting that the provisional payment of this case is legitimate and that it is not a non-business-related payment due to the mere fact that it is the stock transfer price is not a business-related payment

(1) An investor or a shareholder may receive a refund of investment, etc. through the method of retirement or transfer of shares under the Commercial Act (the board of directors resolution, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of shares, payment of shares, capital reduction following retirement, public disclosure, etc.) and the division of the company is also the same. However, the Plaintiff agreed with CC, a joint investor (or a shareholder), but did not undergo the procedures under the Commercial Act, and did not enter into a contract for stock transfer with BB, and thus does not have any legal rights to BB house. Furthermore, the board of directors resolution of B B house is not a resolution on stock retirement or corporate division, but merely a matter on the provisional payment of shares (the provisional payment of shares in this case is to be paid on the premise of return and consideration according to the statement stated in No. 4-5).

② The Plaintiff used the instant provisional payment but did not pay interest on BB house. Moreover, the date of return is only written in the minutes of the board of directors meeting (Evidence No. 4-5) and does not return the instant provisional payment until now. Therefore, the Plaintiff is currently using the instant provisional payment from BB house without the date of return or interest agreement, and only is included in the account books of BB house as if it were to pay the annual interest rate of 0% (B house did not seek the return of the instant provisional payment or the payment of interest on the instant provisional payment against the Plaintiff, and instead, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of liability against B house).

③ The B-house is not the business of lending loans to shareholders by companies engaged in the housing, civil engineering, construction, etc.

④ Based on the instant divisional agreement with CCC, the Plaintiff asserted that “the instant provisional payment constitutes a share transfer price, and used the method of processing the accounts as provisional payment to conceal the fact that the instant provisional payment falls under the share transfer price.” However, it is not legitimate to return the company’s assets in such a way as it was made by the resolution of the board of directors, which is separate from the Plaintiff, the investor, or the CCC, and the Plaintiff and CCC. Since the Plaintiff and CCC are specially related parties to BB housing, the transaction with B housing has no choice but to be treated specially. Even if the Plaintiff and CCC controlled and operates B housing, it is impossible to use or dispose of the company’s funds at will regardless of the Commercial Act or other tax laws, and there was no way to process them by accounting (this, BB housing cannot be appropriated as provisional payment under the Commercial Act, and it cannot be acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s disposal of stocks and non-deductible assets is not subject to the inclusion in gross income or non-deductible income under the tax law.

E. Regarding substance over form principle

(1) The substance over form principle means that, in a case where the form and substance are different in tax law relations, the substance should be imposed with more emphasis than in the form, the economic substance should also be examined without going through the legal form selected by the parties, and the substance should be complied with.

(2) According to the instant division agreement, while the Plaintiff was to divide BB housing, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was to receive a cash of KRW 00 million and OO-dong urban development project. However, the instant division agreement is concluded between the Plaintiff and CCC, which is not possible to assert BB housing, and the Plaintiff is not legally divided into BB housing according to the procedures for stock retirement or corporate division under the Commercial Act, but voluntarily returned BB housing assets (the instant provisional payment) under the Commercial Act, and did not have to take the form of provisional payment to adjust the accounts. In light of the above, the Plaintiff cannot assert legality based on the instant division agreement, and the Plaintiff is not entitled to receive the provisional payment from BB housing, and thus, it is lawful to deem the Plaintiff as the person to whom the provisional payment belongs, and it is not contrary to the substance over form principle.

F. As to justifiable grounds

(1) The proviso to Article 11 and Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22035, Feb. 18, 2010) and Article 6-2 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Rule (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 138, Mar. 31, 2010) provide that “if it is impossible to recover due to a dispute over claims and debts, it shall not be included in the gross income as the provisional payment and recognition of the office-general.”

(2) In light of the fact that the instant provisional payment case was rendered and confirmed in the judgment against the Plaintiff to the effect that “the Plaintiff was in the account of provisional payment at the Plaintiff’s request,” and that the instant provisional payment case was pending in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation against B, and that it cannot be deemed that the collection of the instant provisional payment was impossible due to the litigation against the claims and obligations, and that the instant provisional payment and the instant provisional payment were included in the gross income of the Plaintiff is lawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit in this case, the part of the claim for revocation of imposition of xx year global income tax of 00,000,000 won is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.