beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Chuncheon District Court 2012Guhap1226 ( October 19, 2012)
Title
The argument that part of the amount leaked out of the private company was returned is legitimate because it is not reliable.
Summary
The argument that part of the goods was actually returned out of the money that was leaked out of the private company is not reliable, and there is no evidence to prove that the omitted amount of sales was not leaked out of the private company. Thus, the determination of the omitted amount of sales is legitimate.
Related statutes
Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act
Cases
(Chuncheon)Revocation of the imposition of the income tax, recognized as the representative director by 2012Nu1216.
Plaintiff and appellant
DoAA
Defendant, Appellant
BB Director of the Tax Office
Judgment of the first instance court
Chuncheon District Court Decision 2012Guhap1226 Decided October 19, 2012
Conclusion of Pleadings
June 12, 2013
Imposition of Judgment
June 26, 2013
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of correction of the global income tax OOOOOOOO for the plaintiff on September 3, 2010 (the date of receipt of notice of disposition on September 9, 2010 is the date of disposition and the date of disposition is the same date) shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
"The court's explanation on this case is to delete the "in the course of operating the second fourth line of the judgment of the court of first instance," and it is identical to the statement on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the following." The plaintiff asserts that the amount omitted in the sale of this case has not been leaked again in the court of first instance, but it is difficult to recognize the facts of the above assertion even if considering the evidence at the first island and the statements in Gap evidence No. 25 through No. 27 submitted in the court of first instance.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.