It is reasonable to view that the applicant corporation received the amount of the disputed claim because it fails to present reliable evidence, such as financial data.

In light of the fact that financial data, etc., which did not receive part of the amount of the disputed claim, present contents certification, accusation statement, etc., which were prepared after the absence of reliable evidence, it is reasonable to view that the applicant corporation received the amount of the disputed claim

2013Guhap10100 Action Demanding revocation of the disposition of imposition, including corporate tax

AA General Construction Corporation

Head of Public Tax Office

August 21, 2013

September 11, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On February 6, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the corporate tax of 2006 against the Plaintiff.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. On January 18, 199, the Plaintiff was a juristic person established for the purpose of an engineering work, etc., and was dissolved under Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act on December 12, 2007.

B. On November 2, 200, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction of a factory located in the OOO located in the OOO of the non-party corporation BB (hereinafter referred to as the "BB") and the OO also completed the construction on April 2, 2001, but did not receive the construction payment (hereinafter referred to as the "construction payment of this case").

C. On November 201, 201, in the course of a tax-related field investigation with respect to the DaD, which was involved in the sale of ParkCC-owned land by the BB representative director, the director of the competent tax office notified the Defendant as the taxation data for the Plaintiff, on the ground that the payment of the principal and interest on the instant construction cost to the Plaintiff on the part of BB, which was part of the purchase price of the said land held on June 2006.

D. On February 6, 2012, the Defendant, as income for the business year of 2006 that was not declared by the Plaintiff, issued a notice of correction and notification of the corporate tax (including additional tax) for the business year of 2006 to the Plaintiff.

E. After that, the Defendant changed a part of the above view on May 2012, and determined that the principal amount of the payment claim of this case and the remainder of the OOOO directors paid as the interest amount. Since the time when the income industry of the part of the OO directors paid as the principal amount of the construction payment claim of this case was around April 2001, the time when the building was delivered, the time of delivery of the building, the expiration of the exclusion period of imposition, the Defendant corrected the reduction of the amount of OO directors among the OO directors of the corporate tax imposed as above (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition of imposition”).

F. On September 14, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, and filed a revocation trial with the Tax Tribunal on September 14, 2012, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said request on December 5, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 through 5, 7 (if there are provisional numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 5 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The accurate amount of the repayment amount received from the contact DD (hereinafter referred to as the "payment in this case") that the Plaintiff was entrusted with the duties related to the receipt of the construction payment in this case as the person in charge of the instant construction work, who was the administrator of the Jincheon Office, was the manager of the instant construction work, is not the OOO, but the OOOO is the principal of the instant construction payment claim, and the remaining OOOO was paid as the legal expense to the GE who was represented by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not acquire OOOO as the interest of the instant construction payment claim, and the tax disposition in this case was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) In the Cheongju District Court 2001Kahap540 case of the provisional attachment application filed against BB and its representative director, the Plaintiff was subject to a provisional attachment order on October 10, 2001 as to the OOOOO-O factory site 2,294 square meters and its above ground, OOO-O factory site 2,294 square meters and 13 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-783 square meters, an O-O-O-O-O-owned real estate owned by ParkCC (hereinafter referred to as the 'the provisional attachment of this case').

2) On November 11, 2002, in the Cheongju District Court 2001Kahap3808, the principal case, the Cheongju District Court 2001Gahap3808, the mediation of the following contents was concluded (hereinafter “instant mediation”).

1. The ParkCC’s representative director BB and BB shall pay OO to the Plaintiff until December 16, 2002, but if the above amount is not paid by the above-mentioned date, the above amount shall be paid in addition to 25% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2.3. (Omission)

4.BB waives against the Plaintiff the repair cost and the compensation for delay arising from the construction of a factory located in the OOO in the OO on the part of the OOO on the part of the Plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff waives the remainder of his settlement.

3) During the process of receiving the instant reimbursement from the KON around June 2006, GE, on behalf of the Plaintiff, mutually agreed with KE, that the total amount of the principal and interest claims in relation to the instant claim for the construction cost should be regarded as OE, and considering the contribution of KED to enable the Plaintiff to recover the instant claim for the construction cost that has been delayed for a long period after the instant adjustment was established, OE recognizes that OE sets out or deducts the amount of the total amount to be paid, while OE receives OE sets out the payment of the total amount of the above bonds by receiving OE sets out receipts and cash, etc., and the remaining OE sets up the receipt of the instant claim for the construction cost claim in the name of KOE as the remainder of the total amount of the bonds agreed to be paid to the effect that OE set up the receipts and interest claim for the instant provisional seizure claim in all of the following terms and conditions:

Receipt

gold : OOOOE

Since the above amount was agreed upon by the parties on the provisional seizure case of this case, I will receive the debt amount and statutory interest in order to complete the termination of the provisional seizure.

Receipt : The plaintiff representative director SongF

4) However, Park E-E, who received a partial repayment of the instant claim for the construction price from the KD, immediately after that, stated that Park E-E, who was paid part of the instant claim from the KD, agreed to terminate all of the claims and obligations relating to the instant claim for the construction price, such as the termination of the instant provisional attachment, which was between the KDD and the KD, and received an OE from the BB, by considering that the FF trusted contributed to the receipt of the instant construction price, it recognized OE to acquire OE out of the said expenses, while the Plaintiff included the remaining OOO in the number of the KOE on June 28, 2006, the Plaintiff cancelled the registration of the instant provisional attachment on the six real estate lots except for the real estate ownership transferred by compulsory sale among the instant provisional attachment.

5) On November 201, 201, 100, 1997, 1999, 1999, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5, 6, Eul evidence 3, 4, and 6, witness Park G, YD's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

According to the facts of the recognition as above, Park Jong-dae and YD around June 2006, completed only the payment of the principal and interest agreed upon at the time in relation to the payment of the construction payment claim of this case (i.e., OOwon accepted by GaE + OOwon as agreed to be held by deducting the principal and interest amount under the expense) and the remainder of OD is left with the remainder of the construction payment claim, while the provisional attachment related to the claim of this case was agreed to terminate all of the construction payment claims of this case. However, considering the circumstances that the original amount of the construction payment claim of this case became final and conclusive as OOwon under the adjustment of this case, the above agreement between Ga and YD is reasonable to view that the principal and interest payment claim of this case were appropriated as the principal and interest payment claim of OOwon and the remainder of the principal and interest claim of this case as the principal and interest claim of this case remaining OOwon as the remainder of the principal and interest claim of this case.

Then, ParkE and KD shall be deemed to have appropriated the principal debt of the construction cost of this case as the above OOOO as the principal debt of this case paid between them, and the principal debt of this case shall be deemed to have been appropriated for the payment of the interest of the construction cost of this case, and the disposition of this case taken by the defendant in the calculation of the corporate income of the plaintiff in the business year of 2006 as the interest of the construction cost of this case was paid to the plaintiff among the payment of this case, and the disposition of this case was lawful. From this perspective, the first plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

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