The burden of proving that the corporation's income that has not been entered in the register and has no choice but to be disposed of as a bonus for the representative is clear (=taxpayer)

As long as the revenue of a corporation that was released from the register is not recorded in the book, the tax authority is bound to dispose of it as a bonus for the representative pursuant to Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 94-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, so long as the revenue of the corporation is not clearly attributed to it. In this case, the burden of proof

Article 32 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 94-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu556 delivered on September 9, 1986 (Gong1986,1401) 85Nu807 delivered on April 14, 1987 (Gong1987,817) 90Nu3751 Delivered on December 26, 1990 (Gong191,661)

Co., Ltd.

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1461 delivered on March 27, 1992

Of the lower judgment, the part against the Defendant regarding Class A earned income tax and defense detailed and disposition on income from failure to report in the business year 1984 and the business year 1985 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1'.

2. As long as the revenue of a corporation that was released from the company without being entered in the account book is not clear, the tax authority cannot dispose of it as a bonus for the representative pursuant to Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 94-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. In this case, the burden of proving that it is clear that it belongs to the representative shall be the taxpayer.

According to the records, from the date of the bankruptcy of the Plaintiff Company until July 1984, 1984, it is recognized that the creditor group operated the Plaintiff Company and appropriated the company's income such as license rental fees preferentially to the creditor group for the repayment of the company's obligation to the creditor group. Considering this point, the court below's decision that the income accrued until the above time out of the non-performing income of this case was used for the repayment of the company's obligation is sufficiently acceptable

However, the court below acknowledged that non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1'.

The court below should have further deliberated on the details of the company's obligations that Nonparty 1 had left until August 1984, whose management right was returned, and the time when the creditor and the debt repayment were performed, and should have determined whether the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's assertion that all of the non-party income in this case was used in repaying the company's existing obligations.

Nevertheless, the court below's finding that the non-foreign earnings from August 1984 were used in the repayment of the company's obligations is not sufficient or there is a violation of the rules of evidence. Therefore, the arguments pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant concerning the imposition of Class A earned income tax and defense tax on the portion of omission in import in the business year of 1984 and the business year of 1985, which are the part related to the above revenue after August 1984, shall be reversed, and the remaining grounds of appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)