It is reasonable to regard the provisional payment and the recognition interest for the deceased representative director as the successor's succession to the plaintiff and dispose of the bonus.

The provisional payment for the representative director and the plaintiff who died in the balance sheet and the asset statement of the corporation for each business year is included in the "short-term claim for shareholders, executives, and employees", and the corporation calculated the interest rate recognized as the provisional payment and disposed of the bonus to the plaintiff after the representative director died, and since the provisional payment for the plaintiff was not recovered until the corporation closes its business, the provisional payment for the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been reverted to the plaintiff.

Article 28 (Non-Inclusion of Interest in Loss)

2013Guhap20279 global income and revocation of such disposition

the United Nations A

○ Head of tax office

December 3, 2013

December 24, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax for the year 2008 imposed on the Plaintiff on August 6, 2012 and the imposition of global income tax for the year 2009 imposed on the Plaintiff on August 14, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff’s father, died on August 24, 2006, while serving as the representative director ofCC Electronic (hereinafter “CC Electronic”). The Plaintiff became a major shareholder ofCC Electronic, by inheritance of 106,440 shares (8.7% shares) held by CCB. After the death of CCB, DaD, the same student of CCB, as the representative director, was managed by CC Electronic, but closed on June 30, 2010.

B. On July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007, and the settlement of accounts from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008, the Defendant confirmed the fact that the provisional payment to the Plaintiff and the person who recognized it are included in the annual income tax payment. The Defendant disposed of it as a bonus to the Plaintiff and imposed the global income tax OOO for the year 2008, and imposed the global income tax amount for the year 2009 on August 14, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 26, 2012. The Tax Tribunal rendered a decision of reinvestigation on March 11, 2013, but the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on April 23, 2013 that the instant disposition was justifiable after reinvestigation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On October 30, 2008, the Plaintiff paid OOO as the provisional payment and the recognition and repayment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not have any profit accrued to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant disposition, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed an executive officer or employee of CC Electronic. However, the Defendant was illegal since it imposed the comprehensive income tax by disposing of the provisional payment and the recognition interest as the bonus to the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The amount included in the balance sheet and asset specification ofCC Electronic as “shareholders, executives and employees short-term bonds” is as follows.

Date

The balance of short-term claims of shareholders, executives and employees;

June 30, 2005

OOOE

June 30, 2006

OOOE

June 30, 2007

OOOE

June 30, 2008

OOOE

2) The interest rate for the above provisional payments is as follows, andCC Electronic was disposed of as bonus to the lateB before the death of the lateB, and to the Plaintiff after the death of the lateB.

Business year

Interest recognized as provisional payment, etc.

Total

Practical Notes

From July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005

OOOE

OOOE

From July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006

OOOE

OOOE

From July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

From July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008

OOOE

OOOE

3) The Plaintiff operated the CCTV Electronic India Corporation from June 30, 2002. However, DaD was registered as the Plaintiff’s electronic employee and paid wages until October 24, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's evidence 2-1 and 2, witness d's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) According to the balance sheet and asset specification ofCC and the relevant business year, the provisional payment made against the Plaintiff is included in “the shareholders, executives, employees, short-term claims.” CC electronic calculated the interest rate for recognition of the provisional payment and disposed of as “the Plaintiff after death,” and there is no evidence to collect the provisional payment made against the Plaintiff by the date of closure of CC electronic business. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the pertinent provisional payment was reverted to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances. Accordingly, it is reasonable that the Defendant disposed of the provisional payment and the amount recognized as a bonus against the Plaintiff as a bonus for the Plaintiff.

2) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that, on October 30, 2008, the Plaintiff returned all of the obligation for the provisional payment toCC electronics by providing OOO to DD on October 30, 2008, but the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

① The Plaintiff’s provisional payment obligation is a debt owed to CCTV that is a juristic person, and it is insufficient to recognize that even if a considerable amount of money was remitted to Dad Private Account, a representative director, the repayment of the obligation to the juristic person was made, or that Dad has acquired the Plaintiff’s obligation with the discharge of the obligation.

② As of June 30, 2008, the amount of provisional payments against the Plaintiff is an OO member, and the amount deposited into the cardio-D account by the Plaintiff is different from the above provisional payments as an OO member. The Plaintiff asserts that the above OO member was recognized as of June 30, 2007 and recognized as of June 30, 2008, and the above OOO member, as of October 30, 2008, as well as the amount recognized as of October 30, 2008, including the amount of tax payments, and other amount of tax payments such as the amount of tax payments. However, if a corporation has claims against shareholders, executives, employees, etc., it constitutes corporate tax by organizing the amount recognized under the Corporate Tax Act and constitutes corporate tax, and it does not appear that the Plaintiff did not have any intent to recognize the amount of tax payments with the interest payment based on the agreement, including the interest payment based on the agreement, as well as the interest payment based on the agreement.

③ At this time, the court testified that the OOO members received from the Plaintiff were paid as provisional payments and recognized interest and repayment order. However, the specific purport of this testimony was that DaD was invested in the company by receiving money from their relatives and persons, including the Plaintiff, in order to prevent the default of CC Electronic, around October 2008, and that the amount that the Plaintiff would pay to DaD is not export price or provisional payments. The above OOOO members were deposited into the so-called Do personal account, not the export deposit account, but the so-called Do personal account. Thus, it seems that there was no clear agreement on its nature at the time of paying the above money on October 30, 2008 (In light of the circumstances revealed in the above testimony, it is highly probable that the Plaintiff, a major shareholder of CC, lent the above OO members to prevent the default of the company).

In addition, according to the statements in Eul evidence 7 (Written Answer), the above circumstances are supported by the purport that "it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff paid the provisional payment obligation or he took over it with the exemption from liability, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise, that the testimony of the above DaD alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff paid the provisional payment obligation, or it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the DoD acquired it with the exemption from liability, because it is not good for the financial situation of the company due to sales reduction in the second half of 2008."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.