Since the imposition was made after the expiration of the exclusion period, invalidation is invalidated.

Since it is difficult to objectively confirm at any time the time when the corporation did not endeavor to recover the outstanding amount from the representative who is an employee, and it is unfair to change the time of attribution depending on the time when the plaintiff returned part of the withdrawn amount at any time, the time of attribution of the bonus disposal amount in this case is the year of outflow from the company and the imposition disposition after the expiration of the exclusion period

The exclusion period for national tax assessment under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2017Guhap51792 Action for Claim such as detailed global income and confirmation of invalidity of disposition

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

September 8, 2017

o October 13, 2017

1. Defendant BB director of the tax office’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 000,000,000 on the Plaintiff in 0000, and the imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on the Plaintiff on October 00, 00 by the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan CityCC that the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan CityCC imposed on the Plaintiff in 000.00, the imposition of KRW 00,000 on the Plaintiff is all null and void.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 00, 000, the Plaintiff was appointed as the director and the representative director of DDD (hereinafter referred to as DDD). On October 00, 000, the Plaintiff resigned from the representative director and resigned from the director on October 00, 000. The Plaintiff presented a false contract around October 00, 000, and withdrawn from the director. The Plaintiff, in the form of short-term loans to false customers, and advance payment, withdrawn KRW 00 billion of DD’s funds from the cashier’s checks.

A. In October, 000, one billion won was returned, and the remainder of the KRW 00 billion (hereinafter referred to as the “instant KRW 00 million”) was returned.

(A) have not been returned until now.

B. On October 00, 000, the head of the EE Tax Office deemed that the instant KRW 00 million was reverted to the Plaintiff in 000, and disposed of the income as bonus to the Plaintiff and notified the change in the amount of income to DD. Based on this, Defendant BB head of the EE Tax Office imposed global income tax of KRW 00,000,000 on the Plaintiff on October 00, 000, and the head of the DefendantCC imposed KRW 00,000,000 on the Plaintiff on October 00, 00 (hereinafter “each taxation disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, 4, 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether each taxation of this case is legitimate

The Defendants: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s representative director, who was in the position of the employee of DD, was dismissed from the representative director of DD in the year of 000; and (b) that DD recovered from the Plaintiff in October 000 and renounced the remainder of the damage claim ( billion won) after DD recovered from the Plaintiff; and (c) determined that the amount of KRW 00 billion was reverted to the Plaintiff in the year of 000; and (d) issued each of the instant taxation dispositions.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 8, 9, and 10, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the plaintiff owned 0.00% of DD shares as a shareholder of DD in 000, who is not a major shareholder of DD. The plaintiff was appointed as a representative director on October 000 and resigned from the representative director on October 00, 000. The plaintiff withdrawn DD's funds including KRW 00 billion around 00,000,000, which was withdrawn by the plaintiff at the time of settlement of accounts for the business year of 000,000,000 won, and it was recognized that DD's bad debt allowance was not collected at the time of settlement of accounts for the business year of 00,000,000 won, and that DD's bad debt allowance was not collected at the time of settlement of accounts for the business year of 00,000,000 won.

However, the plaintiff's withdrawal of KRW 00 billion is 00,000, and the debt allowance was established as it was not clear that KRW 00 billion was already recovered at the time of settlement of accounts of KRW 000,000 (DDR did not dispose of KRW 000,000,000, but it would be unreasonable to open the possibility of arbitrary accounting for the purpose of evading the tax, and to view that the time when the plaintiff's withdrawal of KRW 000,000 has not been made at KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was more than KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was more than KRW 300,000,00,000,000,000,000.)

Therefore, each of the instant taxation dispositions on the Plaintiff’s global income tax and local income tax on 000.00.00 shall be null and void since it is apparent that the exclusion period (5 years from 0.00.00 to 00.00.00.00.) has elapsed after the lapse of the exclusion period (Article 26-2(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and the remaining part is examined.

shall be accepted without regard to this.