Jeonju District Court 2015Guhap1400 ( October 31, 2018)

Appellate Court 2013 Mine4976 (O4. 22)

In cases where it is unclear that the amount of outflow from the company should be attributed, it shall be disposed as representative recognition.

(See the judgment of the court of first instance) In relation to the issuance of tax invoices, it is consistent with the rule of experience to deem that the facts of the processing transaction are presumed to be a fact of the processing transaction, although it is clear that the processing transaction amount was out of the company, but its attribution is unclear, and thus, the defendant's disposition is legitimate.

Article 4 (Real Taxation) of the Corporate Tax Act, Articles 19 (Scope of Losses) and 106 (Disposition of Income) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26981, Feb. 12, 2016)

Revocation of revocation of revocation of revocation of the Gwangju High Court-2017-Nu-1549 ( January 31, 2018) Corporate Tax Correction

AA

000 director of the tax office

January 8, 2018

January 29, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of correction notice of KRW 13,291,310 of corporate tax for the business year 2012 against the plaintiff on September 12, 2013 and the disposition of bonus of KRW 665,469,10 of representative director shall be revoked entirely.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the parts stipulated in paragraph (2) below, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42

2. Parts to be dried;

The 9th 14th 15th 15th 15th 15th 9 of the judgment of the first instance shall be applied as follows.

It is difficult to recognize it.

Meanwhile, the plaintiff asserts that it is inconsistent with the defendant's failure to trust the plaintiff to explain the "Namsan 2012" and its contents, which was submitted by the plaintiff, while imposing tax on the basis of " Namsan 2012". However, according to the above evidence, the defendant judged that it is impossible to trust the " Namsan 2012", and that it was recognized that the bonus disposition in this case was made based on the facts confirmed through simultaneous investigation conducted by the business partner during the period of tax investigation with

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall conclude this conclusion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is just and without merit, and it is so dismissed as per Disposition.