early 2012 Middle 4003 (23 May 2013)

It is determined on the basis of who actually belongs to the person who is the pre-paid card payments and the e-paid card payments.

According to the facts found in the criminal trial, in light of the fact that the total pre-paid card price and the bench card price are deemed to belong to the plaintiff's actual operator, the sales price shall be deemed to be the plaintiff's sales since it actually belongs to the plaintiff.

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

District Court 2013Guhap16178

Allied Bank ○○○○○○

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

April 14, 2015

May 26, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of corporate tax and value-added tax by the Defendant as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 against the Plaintiff

All measures taken to notify changes in income amount listed in the attached Table 2 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was established on September 7, 2007, and thereafter, from that time, the online game site's "○○ Game" (hereinafter referred to as the "site") was operated by the Plaintiff, and sold to the ○○○○○○○ (business operator ○○○, hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiff's store") the sales of the games offered at the site of this case, and cyber money directly to the gamezers, or by entrusting the sales of pre-paid cards (which can be used at the site of this case) to the ○○○ (business operator ○, hereinafter referred to as "total store").

B. The instant site users purchased cyber money from the Plaintiff’s game Aba and cyber money provided, purchased pre-paid cards at the stores and input pre-paid card numbers and authentication numbers at the instant site, and used high saws and Kaba and other games, and acquired cyber money in the games. Cyber money was sold to the Plaintiff cyber money exchange (hereinafter “Exchange”) in cash, and the said cyber money was sold to the Plaintiff at the price after deducting fees from the users of the instant site.

C. The KOEM sold cyber money that can be used on the instant site, like pre-paid cards, and the flow of pre-paid cards and the e-paid cards between the Plaintiff and the users of the instant site and the KOEM, member stores and the users of the instant site are as shown in [Attachment 3 and 4].

D. From February 7, 2012 to June 8, 2012, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office omitted filing a tax investigation with the Plaintiff, and subsequently, conducted a tax investigation with the Defendant on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sold pre-paid cards and scoophones to the stores, and received the payment through the borrowed account, and notified the Plaintiff of the payment of the aforementioned pre-paid card price and scoophones price to KRW 3,765,538,070 (the amount entered in the computer server + KRW 1,359,827,270 + the amount deposited in the borrowed account + KRW 2,405,710,80).

E. Accordingly, the defendant included KRW 3,765,538,070 in the plaintiff's gross income amount, deemed it as bonus for the representative's lecture ○○, and disposed of it as well. ② The above salary and bonus of KRW 438,876,180 in deductible expenses; ③ the plaintiff's total representative's bonus of KRW 113,90,000 in deductible expenses; ④ the above pre-paid card's operating expense subsidy of KRW 53,450,00 in deductible expenses and the amount exceeding the entertainment expense limit is deemed as entertainment expenses; and on June 18, 2012, the defendant imposed corporate tax and value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as "the first disposition") on the plaintiff as follows; and the disposition of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the second disposition of this case") was taken in deductible expenses and each disposition of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the second disposition").

The First Disposition (Omission) of this case

The Second Disposition (Omission) of this case shall be made.

F. Accordingly, on August 29, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal filed a request.

From January 23, 2008 to February 2, 2009, on the basis of the data presented by the Plaintiff, the financial transaction was conducted on the basis of whether the deposit and withdrawal of the sales proceeds of ebcoophones were actually made, as presented by the Plaintiff, by omitting sales from the Plaintiff in the taxable period of value-added tax, on the following grounds: (a) from January 23, 2008 to February 2, 2009: (b) whether the deposit of the sales proceeds of eboophones and the sales proceeds of eboophones were actually made.

G. Accordingly, the Defendant’s each disposition of this case was corrected as stated in “the corrected notified tax amount” as of August 14, 2013, since the Plaintiff paid 603,155,000 won to the largest ○○○ in exchange for cyber money out of KRW 2,405,710,80, which was deposited in the borrowed account through a reinvestigation.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9, 21, 22, Eul evidence 1 through 3, 5 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Of pre-paid card payments and e.g. 3,765,538,070 won

1) Whether pre-paid card payments and e-coophone payments can be viewed as Plaintiff’s sales

A) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff entered into a consignment contract of pre-paid cards that can be used on the instant website with the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff sold pre-paid cards to the pre-paid store, the Plaintiff’s total sales were pre-paid card payments received from the Plaintiff, and the pre-paid card payments were the total sales of the pre-paid card, and only the money deposited to the Plaintiff after deducting the commission from the above sales amount. However, the Defendant took the first disposition of the instant case by deeming the total sales amount received from the franchise store as the Plaintiff’s sales.

B) the facts of recognition

(1) The Gangnam○ established and operated the Plaintiff on the ground that ○○, who is an internal female, was the representative director (Gang○○ lent 67% of the Plaintiff’s shares to Y○ and Y○○).

(2) From 2008 to 2009, franchise stores transferred KRW 2,405,710,80 to the account of △△△△△△, △△△△, △△△△△, and △△△△△ (hereinafter referred to as “△△△△, etc.”) as follows. The amount of pre-paid card capital included in a computer server in 2009 was KRW 1,359,827,270, and the Plaintiff, upon filing a corporate tax return, excluded the total amount of KRW 3,765, 538,070 from sales.

(Omission) Payment of pre-paid cards, scoophones and amount of pre-paid card scoophones (Omission)

(3) A part of the money deposited into the account of △△△△, etc. at the audit conducted by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office was confirmed to have been paid to the Gangwon-do and Kim △△△△ (the wife of △○○), Kim △△ (the driver of △○), Kim △△ (the driver of △○), and the △△ (the operation of △○○), etc. (hereinafter

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of the evidence of subparagraphs B through B (including the number of each branch) and the purport of the whole pleading

C) Determination

In each of the above facts, the plaintiff acknowledged that "Y○○ and △△△△△△ was selling a pre-paid card purchased at 70% of its par value from its headquarters at the 70% of its headquarters in the case of Seoul Central District Court 2010 High-Ma588, and that "the pre-paid card price and bench card price should be deemed sales of the pre-paid card." However, it should be deemed that the pre-paid card price and bench card price are sales of the total market price. However, the recognition of the above 2010 High-Ma588 is difficult to view that the pre-paid card price and bench card price actually belong to the total market price and the pre-paid card price have actually been paid to the plaintiff. According to the above facts, the plaintiff's assertion that the pre-paid card price and bench price were sales of the pre-paid card, as alleged by the plaintiff, and that the pre-paid card price and bench price should not be deemed sales of the plaintiff's cyber machine.

2) Whether cyber money paid for money exchange should be recognized as costs

A) The plaintiff's assertion

In order to request the exchange of cyber money from a franchise store to re-money exchange of cyber money from a franchise store, the KOO made payment from the above deposit. Since the KOOO paid KRW 964,90,000 to ○○○, and KRW 120,554,000 to ○○○ in money exchange, each of the above money must be recognized as costs.

B) Determination

정○○, 최○○이 원고로부터 사이버머니대금을 지급받은 계좌라고 주장하며 제출한 갑 제11 내지 13, 16 내지 18호증의 각 기재(지◎◎, 최○○, 박◎◎, 김◎◎ 곽◎◎의 각 금융계좌거래내역)에는 송금자 이름이 없거나 송금자가 김■■, 최○○, 김▲▲, 윤▲▲으로 기재되어 있어 원고가 송금한 것으로 보기 어렵고, 원고가 사이버머니대금으로 지급한 계좌라며 제출한 갑 제22호증(한△△의 금융계좌거래내역)의 기재는 그 계좌에서 출금된 돈이 위 지◎◎, 최○○, 박◎◎, 김◎◎, 곽◎◎에게 이체된 것이 아니어서 이를 정○○, 최○○에게 송금한 것으로 보기 어렵고, 그 이체금의 성격도 알 수 없는바, 원고가 제출한 위 각 증거들에 정○○, 최○○이 작성한 사실확인서인 갑 제10, 15호증의 각 기재를 더해보아도 원고의 위 주장사실을 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다.

3) Whether the total office rent should be recognized as cost

A) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that 148,950,075 won should be recognized at the plaintiff's expense, such as rents, food costs, and phrases paid as the operating expenses of the total market, if the price of pre-paid cards and scoophones are viewed as the plaintiff's sales.

B) Determination

을 제2, 25호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면 총판은 원고 뿐 아니라 원고와 같은 영업을 한 주식회사 ◎◎◎◎◎의 선불카드 및 이벤트쿠폰의 판매도 대행한 사실이 인정되므로, 총판의 운영비를 곧바로 원고의 운영비로 인정하기 어려울 뿐 아니라, 원고 및 총판의 운영 과정에서 작성된 일계표와 경비내역인 갑 제5, 21호증의 각 기재만으로는 원고 주장 액수의 총판 임대료, 식대, 문구류 비용 등이 실제로 지출된 사실을 인정하기 부족하며, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다.

4) Whether the amount entered into a computer server should be excluded from sales

A) The plaintiff's assertion

On August 209 and September 200 of the same year, the Plaintiff supplied pre-paid cards instead of ecoophones without compensation. Since the amount of KRW 1,359,827,270 in the pre-paid card, which was supplied without compensation, is the total amount of the pre-paid card that was supplied without compensation, the amount should be excluded from the Plaintiff’s sales.

B) Determination

In light of the fact that there is no evidence to support the fact that the plaintiff has been supplied with the ecoophone free of charge (or, according to the evidence No. 2 of this case, it is recognized that the ecoophone was supplied to the ecoophone at a cost by the store and the site users of this case), and the fact that the plaintiff's actual operator was stated on August 2009 and September 20 of the same year that the ecoo stated that the ecoo had been kept in the inventory of the ecoophone (Evidence No. 24-5 of the evidence No. 24), it is insufficient to recognize that the ecoophones in the computer server were the ecoos of the pre-paid card supplied to the plaintiff free of charge by only the descriptions of evidence No. 3, 5, and 6 of the evidence No. 1 of this part,

B. As to processing benefits and processing bonuses in KRW 438,876,180

1) Facts of recognition

을 제3, 4, 13, 14호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 법인세를 신고하면서 아래 <급여 및 상여금 내역> 기재와 같이 김★★, 김☆☆, 김◆◆, 심★★, 강★★(이하 '김★★ 등'이라 한다)에 대한 급여 및 상여금 438,876,180원을 손금에 산입하였으나, 원고는 김★★ 등에게 위 급여 및 상여금을 지급하지 아니한 사실, 피고는 위와 같은 사실을 확인한 후 위 438,876,180원을 손금불산입하여 이 사건 각 처분을 한 사실이 인정된다.

Details of benefits and bonuses (Omissions)

2) The assertion and judgment

이에 대하여 원고는, 총판은 직원 안□□, 심□□, 한△△, 최□□, 박□□, 김▣▣, 강창현에게 총 175,700,000원의 급여를 지급하였고, 아르바이트 인건비로 107,100,000원을 지급하였는바, 적어도 위 각 금원 합계 282,800,000원은 가공급여가 아니라고 주장하나, ① 피고는 원고의 모든 급여 및 상여금을 부인한 것이 아니라 세무조사를 통하여 원고의 직원들이 가공급여 및 가공상여금이라고 인정한 위 김★★ 등에 대한 급여 및 상여금만을 부인하였는데, 원고가 실제로 지급하였다고 주장하고 있는 급여는 위 김★★ 등에 대한 급여나 상여금이 아닌 점, ② 앞서 본 바와 같이 총판은 원고 뿐 아니라 원고와 같은 영업을 한 주식회사 ◎◎◎◎◎의 선불카드 및 이벤트쿠폰의 판매도 대행한 사실이 인정되므로, 총판이 지출한 인건비를 곧바로 원고의 손금으로 인정하기는 어려운 점, ③ 갑 제5, 7, 8, 21, 22호증의 각 기재만으로는 원고 또는 총판이 실제로 안□□ 등에게 급여나 아르바이트 인건비를 지출하였고, 그 액수가 원고 주장과 같다는 사실을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없는 점 등을 종합해보면, 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

C. Regarding bonus of 113,900,000 won for a bonus to pregnant ○○○

The plaintiff asserts that 113,90,000 won of an executive bonus paid by the plaintiff to ○○○ is not a bonus paid by the disposal of profits under Article 43(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and therefore, it should be recognized as losses. However, Article 43(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where a corporation pays a bonus to an officer in excess of the amount paid according to the standards for payment of wages determined by the articles of incorporation, the general meeting of shareholders or the resolution of the board of directors, the excess amount shall not be included in the expenses. In full view of the statement of evidence No. 4 and the purport of the whole argument No. 4, the plaintiff paid a bonus of 114,00,000 won to ○○○, an executive officer, without the grounds for the payment of bonuses. Thus, the plaintiff's above 114,000,000 won paid by the plaintiff to ○○ should not be included in the expenses. This part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

D. As to operating expenses subsidies of KRW 53,450,00

1) Facts of recognition

According to the purport of subparagraph 4 and the entire argument, the Plaintiff is recognized to have reported corporate tax by appropriating KRW 53,450,000 for pre-paid card payment claim as advertising expenses in 2008.

2) The assertion and judgment

The plaintiff alleged that the pre-paid card was distributed free of charge to the plaintiff for the recruitment of game users in around 2008, the early business period of the plaintiff, and that the pre-paid card was distributed to the plaintiff to the plaintiff for the purpose of active advertisement and publicity, and therefore, the above expenses constituted advertisement and publicity expenses. Therefore, the tax base for taxation in the lawsuit seeking revocation of corporate tax disposition is at the tax authority, and the tax base for revenue and necessary expenses was deducted from revenue, so the tax authority must bear the burden of proof. However, considering that the necessary expenses are favorable to the taxpayer and most of the facts generated necessary expenses are within the district under the control of the taxpayer, and it is easy to prove them, it is reasonable to presume the non-existence of the necessary expenses. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that pre-paid card was supplied free of charge to the plaintiff for active advertisement and publicity, and it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff's above portion of the entertainment expenses was appropriated as entertainment expenses regardless of the nature of the pre-paid card No. 4.

E. Regarding bonus and disposal of income to ○○○

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Article 106 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a person who is not a representative or representative who can be deemed a representative who can be deemed a person who is not a representative or representative who can be deemed a disposal of income. Thus, a representative who is deemed a bonus disposition should be a person who is registered as a representative in the corporate register, or a person who actually controls the management of the corporation among the executives, such as shareholders who meet the requirements prescribed in the above Article. However, the strong ○○ does not hold at least 30/100 of the Plaintiff’s shares, and the disposition of the instant case

2) Determination

Article 106(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24357, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act”) provides that where the ownership of the amount of outflow from the company is unclear, it shall be deemed that it belongs to the representative in cases where the ownership of the amount of outflow from the company is unclear, and that the total number of stocks owned by an officer who is not a small shareholder and a person with a special relationship shall be 30/100 of the total number of outstanding stocks or total amount of investment of the corporation is owned by such officer as the representative in cases where

Generally, a person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders is presumed to be a shareholder of the company, but the presumption can be reversed if it is proved by the denial of shareholder's rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51505, Mar. 11, 2010). A person who actually holds stocks in another's name falls under "shareholders" as referred to in the above provision. The former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the scope of performance-based bonuses to be included in deductible expenses under Article 20 (1) 4 shall be included in the calculation index and objectives of performance calculation and performance calculation, and the method of measuring and allocating performance results to the worker" as "performance-based bonus paid to the worker". The former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the chairperson, president, vice president, president, managing director, managing director, executive director, etc. of the partnership company, limited liability company, director or director (a) and any other person who is actually engaged in the business under item (c) through (c) of the former Enforcement Decree shall not be included.

However, the plaintiff was established on the ground that ○○, who is a woman, was the representative director, and the plaintiff was actually established.

As seen earlier, the fact that ○○○ and ○○○○ in the course of operating the Plaintiff is holding 67% of the Plaintiff’s shares by lending the name of ○○ and ○○○○, and thus, ○○ is a de facto shareholder who owns at least 30% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares under the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and is an officer, who actually controlled the Plaintiff’

Therefore, it is legitimate for the Defendant to notify the Plaintiff of the change in income amount on the premise of this, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

1. List of notice of corporate tax and value-added tax (Omission)

2. List of notifications on change in the amount of income (Omission)

3,4 Prepaid card circulation flow diagram (Omission)