[1] The person who bears the burden of proving that the corporation's profit not entered in the account book was not leaked out of the company (=the corporation)

[2] The case holding that the disposition of imposition of global income tax is lawful on the ground that: (a) the tax authority revised corporate tax on the ground that Company A appropriated the processed purchase amount by omitting sales revenue and including the processed purchase amount at the time of filing a corporate tax return; and (b) the tax authority imposed global income tax on Company B, etc. after bonus disposal and giving notice of change in income amount; (c) where Company B, a representative director of Company A, prepared false sales slips and most of the false credit card sales amount included the processed purchase amount at the time of filing a corporate tax return; and (d) where it was found that Company A included the processed purchase amount at the time of submitting the processed purchase amount at the time of filing a false credit card sales slip, it shall be deemed that the special circumstance was proved that the processed purchase amount equivalent to the false credit card sales amount on the ground that the false amount reported was not leaked

[1] Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010); Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act / [2] Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010); Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Du16347 delivered on December 24, 1999 (Gong2000Sang, 338)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dongdong Partners, Attorneys Kim Han-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu16921 decided January 7, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The gist of this part of the grounds of appeal is that the sales and purchase of the future peld Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BED”) are all false. However, this is merely a dispute over the lower court’s evidence cooking or fact-finding, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. In light of the records, the lower court’s judgment did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Where a corporation fails to record its sales in the account book despite a fact of sales or appropriates the cost of processing in the account book, barring any special circumstance, the corporation's profits equivalent to the omitted sales or the amount of the cost of processing shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the company. In this case, the special circumstance that the total amount omitted sales, etc. is not leaked out of the company shall be proved by the claimant (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du16347, Dec. 24, 199, etc.).

B. Review of the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.

(1) The future aggregate established with the purpose of precious metal wholesale business, etc. as its business purpose was reported as the total amount of 3,765,449,528 won by filing a corporate tax return for the business year 2003.

② Around December 2007, the head of the Dobong Tax Office omitted sales of KRW 12,334,00 at the time of filing a return of the above corporate tax and added the processed purchase amount of KRW 501,097,209 (= KRW 396,350,570 + KRW 104,746,639 + the processed purchase amount of KRW 104,639) to the Plaintiff on September 1, 2008. On the other hand, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff imposed the disposition of this case on the Plaintiff, the head of the tax office, who was the representative director of the future aggregate at the time of the business year 2003, issued a notice of the change in the amount of income by disposing of the amount divided in proportion to the period of service, as bonus, as global income tax for the Plaintiff on September 1, 2008.

③ On the other hand, on July 23, 2003, the Plaintiff issued a false credit card sales slip equivalent to KRW 1,249,208,000 in the name of the future set up in the name of 762 times from January 28, 2003 to June 2, 2003 at the branch office of the Seoul District Court (Seoul District Court) was convicted of a criminal fact that “The Plaintiff illegally financed funds equivalent to KRW 15% of the remaining 1,061,827,000 after subtracting 15% from the said amount from the fees,” and the above false credit card sales amount was included in KRW 3,765,449,528, which was reported as revenue by filing a corporate tax return for the business year 2003.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, if it is found that the future aggregate has appropriated the processed amount of this case at the cost of processing directly corresponding to the above false credit card sales, it shall be deemed that there was a special reason to view that the amount equivalent to the processed amount of this case was not leaked out. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to view such fact. In addition, even if the income amount of the 2003 business year of future aggregated was excluded from the amount equivalent to the above false credit card sales, it is difficult to deem that the amount of the 2,516,241,528 won (i.e., 3,765,449,528 - 1,249,208,000 won) or more. In full view of the above facts, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s amount of the 2003 business year revenue was not leaked solely on the ground that the amount equivalent to the above false credit card sales was revealed as the amount of the processed amount.

D. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate on the ground that there is no change in the amount of purchase corresponding to the deduction of the above credit card false sales from the amount of future aggregate income, since the corresponding purchase amount should also be excluded from the deductible expenses of future aggregate, and therefore, it is inappropriate to determine that the disposition of this case is legitimate, but the decision of this case is legitimate. It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the outflow from the company, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)