(a) Whether the total amount omitted in sales, including the cost amount, can be treated as a bonus for the representative director (affirmative);

B. Whether the determination of the amount of tax, etc. by means of an additional investigation is legitimate solely on the basis of the person with respect to the plaintiff's estimate (affirmative

A. In the event of an omission in sales by a corporation, unless there are other circumstances, the omission in sales, including the cost amount, shall be deemed to have been out of the company, and it is legitimate that the full amount was disposed of as a bonus to the representative director and the subsequent tax was imposed on Class A earned income and defense

B. If the Plaintiff asserted that there was no omission in sales at the time of filing an action, but there was no dispute over the subsequent determination of the tax base and tax amount of the Plaintiff corporation at the date of pleading, and thus there was an estimated ground for estimating the estimation, the lower court is justifiable to have determined the tax base and tax amount of the Plaintiff corporation as the method of estimated investigation.

A. Article 33(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act (Act No. 2686, Dec. 21, 1974); Article 93 and Article 94 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Act No. 5899, Dec. 30, 1971); Article 94-2(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 93 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 94(2)

Attorney Park Nin-han et al.

Attorney Ansan-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu640 delivered on August 17, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

In a case where a corporation fails to enter its sales in the account book despite the fact of sales and fails to enter its sales in the account book, the total amount of the omitted sales, including the cost, shall be deemed to have been out of the company, barring any other circumstances, so the court below is just in holding that the defendant's disposition of imposing Class A earned income tax and defense tax on the representative director by disposing the total amount of the omitted sales in the business year 1976 of the Plaintiff corporation as bonus for the representative director, is legitimate. There is no error of law by misapprehending

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

The issue is that the court below did not examine the tax base and tax amount of the plaintiff corporation in the 1977 business year and applied the income standard rate to the total income amount of the plaintiff corporation in the 1977 business year without examining whether there is a ground for estimation. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle of the calculation method of income, which unfairly recognized corporate tax, etc. or incomplete hearing. In light of the records, the plaintiff asserted that the disposition of corporate tax, etc. in the 1977 business year was not omitted in sales, and that the total income amount of the plaintiff corporation in the 1977 business year is different from the amount of the defendant's recognition. Thus, the court below did not dispute the determination of the tax base and tax amount of the plaintiff corporation in the 1977 business year because it is clear that there is a ground for estimation of the tax base and tax amount of the plaintiff corporation in the 1977 business year. Thus, the court below's decision that the plaintiff corporation's tax base and tax amount in the 1977 business year should be determined by estimation investigation.

2. The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

A theory of lawsuit is just by examining the purport that the court below failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations in the judgment of the court below or erred by misunderstanding facts in violation of the rules of evidence on the ground of the facts found lawful by the court below, or by examining the process of documentary evidence which was conducted to recognize the facts in the judgment of the court below through records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as a theory of lawsuit or an incomplete hearing or a violation of the rules of evidence. The Supreme Court decision of the lawsuit is different from this case and it is not appropriate

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)