In the case of omission in sales, the burden of proof that the omission in sales has not been leaked to the other party.

As the Plaintiff included the processing purchase amount of this case, which is the cost of processing, in the account book, the amount equivalent thereto shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the company, barring special circumstances, and special circumstances to deem that the amount of the instant processing was not leaked out of the company shall be proved by the Plaintiff.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree thereof

Daegu District Court 2015Guhap21393

Co., Ltd. 000

00. Head of tax office

June 16, 2015

July 21, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's disposition of notification of change in income amount of KRW 548,052,80 on February 25, 2014 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity established on May 6, 201 and engaged in 000 business, etc., and established on the settlement of accounts in 201, and a total of KRW 548,052,800 for processing and purchase ( KRW 66,288,100 on September 26, 201, and KRW 11 on October 11, 2011).

12,121,00 won, 101, 101, 452,100 won on October 26, 201, and 145,865,400 won on November 25, 2011, and 122,326,200 won on December 17, 201, and hereinafter referred to as "the processed purchase amount of this case") shall be included in the accounts of raw materials in the accounts, and the counterpart account shall be deposited in the accounts of raw materials (hereinafter referred to as "the provisional deposit of this case"), and the corporate tax was reported. However, on July 29, 2013, the defendant sent a notice of submission of 'written notification of submission of 'written explanation' on the amount of regular documentary evidence, such as purchase tax invoice, etc., as non-deductible expenses, and the plaintiff disposed of the processed purchase amount of this case as non-deductible expenses, and filed a revised declaration and paid KRW 186,868,68.

C. On February 24, 2014, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s disposition of the instant processed purchase amount as a reservation, and, on the grounds that the processed purchase amount was out of the company and it is unclear that it would have been attributed to it, the Defendant disposed of the instant processed purchase amount as a bonus for the year 2011 year of the Representative Gambling Rule and notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal on September 22, 2014 on May 26, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 29, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 4, 5 evidence, Eul's 1 to 4, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The pertinent amount cannot be deemed to have been out of the company because it is merely a nominal debt. The Plaintiff’s amount of the instant provisional injunction is not limited to the amount of the provisional injunction calculated by the instant processed purchase amount, but is not a risk of returning the instant provisional injunction by removing it from the account book of the Plaintiff company on the ground of the interest of electrical error revision before actually repaying the instant provisional injunction to the Park Jong-gu. Thus, it is unlawful to dispose of it as a bonus to the Plaintiff’s representative.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The allegation that the instant provisional collection was merely a nominal debt and thus was not an outflow from the company

A) In a case where a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite a fact of sales or appropriates the cost of processing, barring special circumstances, if the corporation’s revenue equivalent to the omitted sales or the total cost of processing was leaked out of the account book, barring special circumstances, it is necessary to prove that the omission of sales or the cost of processing was not leaked out of the company’s private revenue (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du16347, Dec. 24, 199; 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002). Furthermore, even if a corporation’s cash, which is the other party to the account, was included in a provisional account, was not recorded in the account book, and accounts were recorded in the account book as a short-term transaction from the account book, and thus, it should be deemed that there was no change in net assets from the account book to the representative director, and thus, it should be deemed that there was no possibility that it would be an omission in net assets from the account book.

B) In the instant case, the Plaintiff included the instant processing purchase amount, which is the cost of processing, in the account book, and barring any special circumstance, the amount equivalent thereto shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the private company, and special circumstances to deem that the instant processing purchase amount was not leaked out of the private company need to be proved by the Plaintiff.

However, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8 (including each number) is insufficient to recognize that the amount of provisional receipts equivalent to the amount of the processed purchase in this case is not leaked as a nominal processing obligation. Rather, according to the above evidence, it is found that the plaintiff's total amount of provisional receipts in 2011, which was recorded as half of Sep. 26, 201, which was recorded as half of Sep. 26, 201 in which the amount of provisional receipts was appropriated as a relative account of a park, reaches 747,50,000 won. Of this, there seems to be high possibility that the amount of provisional receipts in this case was appropriated to the half of the provisional receipts in this case (the plaintiff asserts that the above half amount is merely an automatic unit for the adjustment of the half of the provisional receipts in this case, not the amount of the provisional receipts in this case, but the amount of violation is classified as a "short-term representative of the account", and there is no other evidence to recognize it as a single half of the provisional receipts in this case.

C) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) The processing purchase amount of the instant case was already disposed of as a reservation, and the instant provisional deposit account was deleted.

As to the assertion that there was no risk of repayment.

A) In principle, once income tax liability is established on the amount of money distributed to the representative, etc. of the relevant corporation as a result of the original outflow from the company, it shall not affect the income tax liability that has already been established even if such amount was returned to the relevant corporation later, and thus, it shall be disposed of pursuant to Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. However, the main text of Article 106 (4) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where the amount of money that the relevant corporation has voluntarily endeavored within the deadline for filing a lawsuit is collected through voluntary efforts, such amount shall not be deemed to have been disclosed from the company, and thus, it shall be deemed that the corporation has an opportunity to voluntarily correct itself by failing to take a disposition of income in accordance with the above principle. Therefore, even if the amount of money that the corporation has withdrawn from the company is not by voluntary efforts of the relevant corporation, it shall be again returned to the corporation in principle. Thus, it shall not be deemed that it infringes on the essential contents of property rights guaranteed in the Constitution or it is levied

B) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff disposed of the processed purchase amount of this case as a non-deductible expense reservation on November 28, 2013, and revised and paid corporate tax of KRW 188,266,680 as a result of the disposition of the instant processing purchase amount as a non-deductible expense reservation, and even if the provisional revenue account of this case was deleted, it was done after the Defendant already lost the opportunity for self-resolution by being aware of the “written notice of submission of explanatory material” from the Defendant around July 29, 2013, because the Plaintiff had already been aware of the fact that it would have already been corrected. Thus, it is reasonable for the Defendant to dispose of the said amount as a bonus to the Plaintiff representative director pursuant to the proviso of Article 106(4) of

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

(c)