Suwon District Court 2009Guhap5108 ( December 17, 2009)

Early High Court Decision 2008Du4134 ( October 11, 2009)

The legitimacy of the assertion that the disposition of bonus for the processing purchase is a representative director under the actual name

Although it is alleged that the loan was lent in the name for the purpose of securing the loan, there is no specific and objective evidence to ascertain the flow of the loan requested by the claimant through the money lending agreement and the financial transaction evidence, and it is not verified by objective evidence that the applicant is not the representative of the non-claim corporation

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the imposition of global income tax of 71,482,615 (including additional tax) on the plaintiff on September 1, 2008 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgments of the first instance;

The reason why the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: A. 10 of the first instance court's 4th trial's 'A' is called as ‘B' of ‘A' of ‘B' of ‘B' of ‘B' of ‘B' of ‘B' of ‘B' of ‘B' of the first instance court', ‘B' of ‘5th and 16th trial' as ‘the first instance court', ‘the fifth 17th ' cannot be ‘court' as ‘court of the fifth ',' and ‘the sixth ' cannot be ‘the sixth ',' and ‘B' as ‘the testimony of ‘B' of each evidence of 8 through 19 of the first instance court' and ‘the testimony of this party ' is not sufficient to recognize this' as it is stated in the reason of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of ‘B' of ‘B' of ‘B' of the evidence of the first instance court' as ‘B' of the first instance court'

2.In conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.