Daegu District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-21393 ( March 21, 2015)

The early 2014Gu4605

If the processing cost is calculated, it shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the company, except in extenuating circumstances.

As the processing purchase amount was included in the account book, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the amount equivalent to the processing purchase amount was leaked out of the company, and there is a need to prove that the Plaintiff asserts that the amount of the processing purchase in this case was not leaked out of the company.

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

Daegu High Court-2015-Nu-6027 ( December 18, 2015)

OOOO

O Head of tax office

Daegu District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-21393 ( March 21, 2015)

November 20, 2015

December 18, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. "Defendant OO tax secretary" in the indication of parties to the judgment of the first instance, shall be construed as "Defendant OO director of the tax office";

The determination shall be determined.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the notification of the change in the income amount of KRW 548,052,80,00, which shall accrue to the plaintiff on February 25, 2014.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds for the plaintiff's assertion in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court, and the first instance court's decision rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is justified even if both the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the purport of the whole arguments in the first instance court and the first instance

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the statement on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as is by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. 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.

Since the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate, it is dismissed for the reason that the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is obvious that "Defendant OO's office" is a clerical error in the defendant OO chief of the tax office.

It is decided as per Disposition by the court below to correct this.