Gwangju District Court-2012-Gu Partnership-5404 ( October 24, 2013)

2012-Mining-2332

The amount reported to the rehabilitation court after the date on which the second meeting of interested persons is held in the rehabilitation procedure has ceased to exist;

As long as the corporate tax and value-added tax claim of this case were extinguished, the disposition to correct and notify the corporate tax and value-added tax of this case, which was conducted in the state that the plaintiff cannot exercise the right to impose, is unlawful, and the rehabilitation court shall report the income tax claim to the rehabilitation court within one month from the date of occurrence of the claim and the rehabilitation

Articles 18, 153, 156, 157, 162, 166, and 167 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act other than those of Articles 118, 153, 156, 167

2013Nu1699 Revocation of revocation of disposition of rectification of corporate tax, etc.

AA

000 director of the tax office

Gwangju District Court Decision 2012Guhap5404 Decided October 24, 2013

December 18, 2014

January 8, 2015

Orders

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

On October 11, 2011, the defendant revoked the corrective notice of corporate tax and the corrective notice of value-added tax in each column of notified tax amount stated above against the plaintiff on October 11, 201.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. One-third of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

summary of the summary

As long as the corporate tax and value-added tax claim of this case are extinguished, the corporate tax of this case and the disposition of correction and notification of value-added tax are illegal.

In accordance with the notice of change in the amount of income, the rehabilitation court shall report the income tax claim to the rehabilitation court within one month from the date of occurrence of the instant income tax claim following the notice of change in the amount of income, state its opinion on the reported rehabilitation claims on the special inspection date, and

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. On October 11, 2011, the defendant's disposition of correction and notification of corporate tax and value-added tax in each item of the notified tax amount in attached Form 1 against the plaintiff and the disposition of notification of change of income amount in attached Form 1 shall be revoked

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1997. 2. 19. 건설폐기물처리업 등을 목적으로 하여 설립된 회사로서, @@가 2005. 4. 1.부터 2008. 4. 1.까지, 2008. 4. 23.부터 2008. 6. 16.까지 원고의 대표이사로 재직하였다. 한편, 원고에 대하여 2010. 9. 6. 회생절차개시결정 및 2011. 11. 1. 회생계획인가결정이 이루어졌는데, 000이 2011. 8. 1. 위 회생절차에서 관리인으로 선임되었다.

나. 피고는 2011. 8. 10.부터 2011. 9.경까지 원고에 대한 세무조사를 실시한 결과, 원고가 부가가치세 및 법인세 신고를 하면서 2005. 5. 16.부터 2009. 10. 19.까지 원고의 거래처와 원고의 직원인 ###의 계좌에서 @@의 계좌로 입금된 금원 중 395,393,401원, 2006. 8. 8.부터 2010. 5. 28.까지 원고의 거래처에서 @@의 지인인 aaa의 계좌로 입금된 금원 중 184,984,006원 합계 580,377,407원을 매출금에서 누락하였다고 적발하였다.

다. 이에 따라 피고는 2011. 10. 11. 원고에 대하여 별지1 기재와 같이 2005년부터 2009년까지 각 귀속 법인세와 2005년 제2기부터 2009년 제2기까지 각 귀속 부가가치세를 경정・고지 처분 (이하 '이 사건 법인세 및 부가가치세 경정・고지처분'이라고 한다)하는 한편, 이와 관련하여 귀속이 불분명한 금액에 대하여는 원고의 대표이사 @@에 대한 상여로 소득처분한 후 2005년부터 2009년까지 각 귀속 소득금액 변동통지 처분(이하 '이 사건 소득금액 변동통지처분'이라고 한다)을 하였다(이하 위 2개 처분을 통틀어 '이 사건 처분'이라고 한다).

D. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 10, 2012 upon filing an objection, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on August 28, 2012.

Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 through 10, Eul evidence 1 through 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) 원고는 폐기물처리위탁업체에게 매출처별 세금계산서를 모두 발행한 다음 이를 매출로 신고하였으나, 다만 원고 법인의 계좌로 압류될 것을 우려하여 매출 신고한 매출금을 @@의 계좌와 aaa의 계좌로 입금받았을 뿐이므로, 위 각 계좌에 입금된 금원이 매출처별 세금계산서합계표 등과 일치하지 않는다고 하여 이를 모두 매출 누락으로 보고 이 사건 각 처분을 한 것은 위법하다.

2) In calculating the tax base at the time of the instant disposition, the Defendant did not include the input tax amount of value-added tax that the Plaintiff had not deducted in deductible expenses, thereby excessively calculating 19,546,574 won as a whole.

3) 피고가 @@에 대한 상여로 소득 처분한 합계 365,365,081원 중 177,641,600원은 @@의 계좌에서 원고의 계좌로 입금되었고, 한편 위 금원이 원고의 일계표에는 대표이사 가수금으로 처리되어 있으나 이는 원고에게 입금할 당시 별 의미 없이 습관적으로 기록된 것일 뿐 다시 @@에게 변제될 것이 예정된 실질적인 대표이사 가수금의 성격을 지닌 것이 아니어서 국세청 법인세 집행기준 제2항 등에 의하여 사내유보로 처리하여야 하므로, 이 사건 소득금액 변동통지처분은 177,641,600원의 한도 내에서 위법하다.

4) Even if it is not so, the corporate tax claim that the Defendant corrected and notified as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant corporate tax claim”) and value-added tax claim (hereinafter “value-Added Tax claim”) as stated in the separate sheet and the rehabilitation claim under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “The instant income tax claim”) as stated in the separate sheet constitutes both the corporate tax claim that the Defendant issued and notified to the Plaintiff as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant corporate tax claim”) and the pro ratad Income Tax Claim following the notice of change in income amount as stated in the separate sheet. The Defendant did not report the above claims as the rehabilitation claim by the due date in the rehabilitation procedure, and did not file a final claim inspection judgment within one month from the due date, and did not file an objection by the administrator against the above claims, and thus, each of the dispositions of the instant case in which the Plaintiff could not exercise the right to impose

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

1) As to the instant disposition of correction and notification of the corporate tax and value-added tax

A) First, we examine whether the corporate tax and value-added tax claim of this case constitute rehabilitation claims.

Article 118(1)1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that “a claim on the property arising before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures with respect to an obligor shall be deemed a rehabilitation claim, and Article 179(1)9 of the same Act provides that “a claim for which the payment deadline has not yet arrived at the commencement of rehabilitation procedures shall be deemed a public-interest claim.” In this context, the payment deadline under Article 179 Subparag. 9 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act shall be deemed to refer to the statutory payment deadline under which the individual tax-related Acts are objectively and clearly stipulated, rather than the designated payment deadline determined by the intention of the tax authority in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du27523, Mar.

With respect to this case, the statutory due date of payment of corporate tax for the year 2009 which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff shall be from December 31, 2009 to March 31, 2010, which is the end of the business year pursuant to Article 60(1) of the Corporate Tax Act. The statutory due date of payment of value-added tax for the second period of 2009 shall be from December 31, 2009 to December 25, 2010, which is the end of the taxable period pursuant to Article 49(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act. Thus, the statutory due date of payment of corporate tax for each year of 2005 to December 209 and the statutory due date of payment for each year of 209 to September 6, 2010, which is the date of the decision on commencing the rehabilitation procedure for the Plaintiff. Therefore, each of the statutory due date of payment for value-added tax for each year of 2005 to September 6, 2010.

B) Next, we examine whether the corporate tax and value-added tax claim in this case were forfeited or exempted.

구 회사정리법(2005. 3. 31. 법률 제7428호로 폐지되기 전의 것, 이하 '회생정리법'이라고 한다) 제112조, 재157조 제1항, 제241조와 채무자회생법 제156조 제1항, 제131조, 제251조에 의하면, 조세채권자는 지체 없이 그 채권액 및 원인과 담보권의 내용을 법원에 신고하여야 하고, 개별적인 권리행사가 금지됨과 아울러 정리절차 똔느 회생계획에 의하여만 변제받을 수 있으며, 정리계획 또는 회생계획의 인가 결정이 있은 때에는 그 계획이나 위 각 법의 규정에 의하여 인정된 권리를 제외하고는 채무자는 모든 정리・회생채권과 정리・회생담보권에 관하여 그 책임을 면하고, 또한 정리회사에 대한 조세채권이 회사정리 전에 법률에 의한 과세요건이 충족되어 있으며 그 부과처분이 정리절차 개시 후에 있는 경우라도 그 조세채권은 정리채권이 되고, 정리회사에 대한 조세채권은 회상정리법 제157조 제1항에 따라 지체 없이(즉 정리계획안 수립에 장애가 되지 않는 시기로서 늦어도 통상 정리계획안 심리기일 이전인 제2회 관계인 집회일 전까지) 신고하지 아니하면 실권 소멸되고(대법원 2002. 9. 4. 선고 2001두7268 판결 등 참조), 이러한 법리는 회생회사에 대한 조세채권의 경우에도 그대로 적용된다고 봄이 상당하다.

In light of the above legal principles, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the Evidence Nos. 13 and 13 as to the instant case, it is recognized that the Defendant reported the instant corporate tax and value-added tax claim to the rehabilitation court before October 19, 201, which was after April 4, 2011, the second assembly date of the second assembly of related persons, in the rehabilitation procedure against the Plaintiff. Thus, it is deemed that the instant corporate tax and value-added tax claim were extinguished because they were not reported within the reporting deadline under the Creditor Rehabilitation Act.

C) Sub-decision

As above, insofar as the corporate tax and value-added tax claim of this case were extinguished, the disposition of correction and notification of the corporate tax and value-added tax of this case, which was made under the condition that the Plaintiff cannot exercise the right to impose, is unlawful without

2) As to the notice of change in the instant income amount

가) @@와 aaa의 계좌에 입금된 금원 중 매출처별 세금계산서합계표와 불일치하는 금액을 매출누락으로 처리한 것이 부당한지 여부

(1) If a tax authority received a written confirmation from a taxpayer that there was an omission of sales in a certain part of a transaction from the taxpayer in the course of conducting a tax investigation, such written confirmation cannot be readily denied as evidence of the written confirmation, barring special circumstances, such as where the written confirmation was forced against the intent of the originator or it is difficult to regard the specific fact as evidence due to lack of the content (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002). In general, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of tax imposition, the burden of proof regarding the facts requiring taxation should be borne by the imposing authority. However, if the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule are revealed in the course of a specific lawsuit, unless the other party proves the circumstances that the pertinent facts in question cannot be subject to the application of the empirical rule, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent taxation disposition were illegal disposition that failed to meet the requirements for taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 20

(2) 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 갑 제4, 5호증, 을 제2 내지 8호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고가 원고에 대한 세무조사를 실시하면서 @@와 aaa의 계좌의 입출금내역을 분석하고 원고로부터 제출받은 자료를 검토한 결과 원고의 거래처에서 @@의 계좌로 입금된 금원 합계 209,926,471원, 원고의 거래처에서###의 계좌로 입금되었다가 @@의 계좌로 입금된 금원 합계\u3000184,466,930원, 원고의 거래처에서 aaa의 계자로 입금된 금원이 합계 184,984,006원을 합한 580,377,407원을 누락매출금으로 확정한 사실, 2011. 9.경 원고의 관리인인 000으로부터 2005년부터 2010년까지 매출신고를 함에 있어 위 580,377,407원의 수입금액을 누락했음을 인정한다는 내용의 확인서를 작성 받은 사실이 각 인정된다.

위 인정사실 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 피고는 거래처로부터 @@와 aaa의 계좌에 입금된 금액을 조사하여 기 매출금, 사적입금, 증자대금, 차용금 등 매출누락과 무관한 금액을 제외하고 관련 장부 등에 의하여 확인되지 않은 금액만을 누락매출금으로 확정하였는바 이를 부당하다고 볼 수 없는 점, 원고의 주장대로 매출처별 세금계산서를 모두 발행한 다음 이를 매출로 신고하고, @@와 aaa의 계좌로 매출금을 입금받았을 뿐이라면 원고로서는 매출처별 매출채권을 모두 회수하기 위해서라도 매출처별 세금계산서와 위 각 계좌의 입금 내역을 비고・관리하여 왔을 것으로 보이는데, 이에 관한 구체적인 자료가 제출되지 않은 점, 원고의 관리인인 000이 피고에게 작성해 준 확인서의 증거가치를 부인할 만한 사정이 보이지 않는 점 등을 종합하면, @@와 aaa의 계좌에 입금된 금액 중 관련 장부 등에 의하여 내역이 확인되지 않는 금액은 누락 매출금이라고 봄이 상당하므로 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

B) Whether there was an error of not including the input tax amount in calculating the tax base

Article 21 subparag. 1 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that input tax amount, etc. of value-added tax shall not be included in deductible expenses for the purpose of calculating the amount of income of a domestic corporation for each business year. This part of the prior plaintiff's assertion is

다) @@에 대한 상여로 소득 처분한 365,365,081원 중 177,641,600원이 대표이사가수금으로 잘못 처리된 것인지 여부

(1) Where a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite a fact of sales, barring any special circumstance, the total amount omitted from sales, including the cost of raw material purchase, etc., shall be deemed to have been leaked out to the private company, and special circumstances to deem that the omission in sales was leaked to the private company should be proved by the corporation asserting it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002; 2005Du2049, Dec. 21, 2006). In addition, Article 106(1)1 proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where the amount included in gross income was leaked to the private company, it shall be deemed that it was reverted to the representative where it is evident that the person to whom it reverts, but it is unclear.

(2) 이 사건에 관한여 살피건대, 위 금원의 실질적인 성격이 대표이사 가수금이 아니라는 원고의 주장사실을 인정할 만한 증거가 없고, 오히려 을 제8호증 기재, 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면 위 금원이 원고의 일계표상 대표이사 가수금으로 처리되어 있는 사실이 인정되는 한편, 위 금원의 원고의 재무제표상 가수금 계정 등에 표기되지 아니하였다거나 @@가 원고의 회생절차에서 회생채권으로 신고하지 아니하였다는 사정만으로 위 금원이 대표이사 가수금이 아니라고 볼 수 없는바, 피고가 원고에 대한 세무조사를 실시하여 적발한 매출금 누락액 중 귀속이 불분명한 365,365,081원을 법인세법 시행령 제106조 제1항 제1호 단서에 따라 원고의 대표이사 @@에 대한 상여로 소득처분한 것이 어떠한 잘못이 있다고 할 수 없으므로, 원고의 위 주장 역시 이유 없다.

D) Whether the instant income tax claim was forfeited or exempted

(1) First, we examine whether the pertinent income tax claim is a rehabilitation claim.

조세채권이 채무자회생법 제118조에서 정한 회생절차개시 전의 원인으로 생긴 재산상의 청구권으로서 회생채권에 해당하는지 여부는 회생절차개시결정 전에 법률에 정한 과™J요건이 충족되어 그 조세채권이 성립되었는지 여부를 기준으로 하여 정해지는 것인데, 과세관청이 법인의 사외유출금에 대하여 대표자 상여로 소득처분을 하고 소득금액변동통지를 하는 경우 그에 따른 원천징수분 근로소득세의 납세의무는 소득금액변동통지서가 송달된 때에 성립함과 동시에 확정되므로, 소득금액변동통지서가 당해 법인에 대한 회생절차개시 후에 송달되었다면 그 원천징수분 근로소득세 채권은 회생절차개시 후의 원인으로 생긴 것으로서 채무자회생법상의 회생채권에 해당하지 않으나(대법원 2013. 2. 28. 선고 2012두23365 판결 등 참조), 한편 채무자회생법 제179조 제1호 제9호 가목 단서에서는 "법인세법 제67조의 규정에 의하여 대표자에게 귀속된 것으로 보는 상여에 대한 조세는 원천징수된 것에 한하여 공익채권으로 한다"라고 규정하고 있다.

In light of the above legal principles and the legal provisions, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 7 and 8 as to this case, the defendant issued a notice of change in the amount of income of this case to the plaintiff on October 11, 201, which was after the date the decision was made to commence the rehabilitation procedure, and on the other hand, it is recognized that the tax withheld wage and salary income tax was not withheld in relation to the above disposition, so the income tax claim of this case constitutes rehabilitation claim not a priority

(2) Next, we examine whether the pertinent income tax claim was forfeited or exempted.

According to the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, any rehabilitation claim and rehabilitation security right that accrue after the reporting period has expired shall be reported within one month after such right occurs (Article 153(1)); in such case, the court shall set the special inspection date for inspecting the reported rehabilitation claims (Article 162); and in the event that rehabilitation creditors, etc. do not raise any objection on the special inspection date, the reported rehabilitation claims shall become final and conclusive (Article 166). Meanwhile, given that any claim among the reorganization claims or rehabilitation claims involving a reorganization company or rehabilitation company may be acknowledged as having priority over others, the State is not subject to the procedure for investigating the claims provided for in the Company Reorganization Act and the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, and the State is obliged to promptly report the amount of such claim, cause and security right to the court (Article 157(1) of the Company Reorganization Act, Article 156(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, and Article 157(1)7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act shall be entered in the list of reorganization creditors or rehabilitation creditors (Article 157(2)144(1) of the Company Reorganization Act), Article 157(15 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act) of the same Act).

In light of the above legal principles and the provisions of the Act, according to the health class, Eul evidence No. 13, the defendant filed a report on the above claim with the rehabilitation court on October 19, 201, which was within the month from October 11, 201, which was the date when the income tax claim of this case occurred according to the notice of change in the income amount of this case, and on October 26, 2011, the plaintiff's administrator, who was the above administrator, submitted the above court on October 26, 201, "in the case of the income tax claim of this case, the review of the legality before taxation and the objection are in progress, so it is classified as a non-determined debt in the rehabilitation plan (the right revision of the rehabilitation plan and the repayment method for the confirmed debt)," and the plaintiff's opinion on the premise that the subsequent rehabilitation claim of this case was not subject to the notification of change in the income amount of this case, and the above court did not present its opinion on the rehabilitation claim of this case pursuant to Article 15 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the corporate tax and value-added tax in this case is justified, and the part of the claim for cancellation of the notice of change in income amount is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part of the decision of the court of first instance concerning the correction and imposition of corporate tax and value-added tax is unfair with different conclusions, the plaintiff's claim for this part is revoked and the remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.