Whether the measure is legitimate in recognition of the amount of processed purchase

Unless there is evidence of the substance corresponding to the processing purchase, it is legitimate to dispose of it as bonus by deeming it to have been reverted to the representative of the corporation pursuant to the Corporate Tax Act.

Article 4 of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 92,040,860 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on September 5, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, or there is no dispute between the parties:

A. ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○”) is a company established on April 22, 1998 with its business purpose, such as computer software-related service business, and the Plaintiff is the representative director of ○○○○○○.

B. During the second period of 2001, ○○○○○○ received one purchase tax invoice of KRW 215,000,000 (hereinafter “purchase tax invoice”) from ○○○○ Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○ Korea”) during the second period of 2001, and deducted the said supply value as an input tax amount at the time of the return of the second period of value-added tax in 2001 and included it in deductible expenses at the time of the return of the corporate tax for the second period of 201 business year.

C. The Defendant: (a) received the instant purchase tax invoice from the head of ○○○○ Korea having jurisdiction over the business place of ○○○ Korea, from the head of ○○○○○ Korea, a processed tax invoice received without a real transaction; (b) deemed the said supply price as a processing cost based on the processed tax invoice without a real transaction; and (c) notified ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ of value-added tax and corporate tax accordingly; (d) around May 2006, the Defendant disposed of KRW 236,500,000, including value-added tax, to the Plaintiff as a representative director and then notified

D. Around September 5, 2006, 2006, ○○○○○ did not withhold or pay the Plaintiff’s labor income tax on the Plaintiff’s earned income that was disposed of as bonus, the Defendant decided and notified ○○○○○○, a withholding agent, of KRW 92,040,860 as earned income tax for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On November 30, 2001, 2001, ○○○○○○○○○ has developed an Internet telephone device called “○○○○○○○○○” and received 3400 1 e-mail, an Internet telephone equipment, from ○○○ Korea, to operate the Internet phone, and deposited 236,50,000,000 won, including value-added tax, into the bank account of ○○○○○ Korea. Accordingly, the instant purchase tax invoice is not a processed purchase tax invoice received without a real transaction. Accordingly, it is unlawful to take the instant disposition after reporting it as a processing transaction and disposing of it as an admission to the Plaintiff.

(2) Even if the instant tax invoice is a processed tax invoice, the Plaintiff did not receive the amount corresponding to the bonus disposition, and thus, the instant disposition of imposition is against the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to whether a processing transaction is a processed transaction

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, ○○○ Korea for the purpose of manufacturing ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the first period of 2001, without being supplied goods or services from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in order to supply the purchase tax invoices of KRW 500,000,000 for the purpose of self-financial supply, and upon receiving the purchase tax invoices of KRW 500,000 for the corresponding sales, it did not supply the goods or services to ○○○○○○○○ in the first period of 201, without supplying the corresponding goods or services, and issued the sales tax invoices of KRW 300,00,000 for the first period of 201, and issued them to ○○○○○○○ in the second period of 201, and there seems to have been no other evidence to prove that the purchase tax invoices of this case were issued during the period of 2001.

According to the above facts, the purchase tax invoice amount in this case should be deemed to have been out of the company as the processing purchase amount, and in cases where it is unclear to whom the amount of the processing purchase amount that has been out of the company belongs, the disposition of income that is deemed as bonus to the plaintiff who is the representative director of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ②

(2) Judgment on the assertion that the substance over form principle is violated

Article 106 (1) 1 (proviso) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a corporation shall be deemed a bonus to a representative without regard to certain facts which can be recognized as such in order to prevent an unfair act under the corporate tax law, rather than based on the fact that such income has accrued to the representative (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu3120, Jul. 14, 1992). If a corporation does not enter its sales in the account book or appropriates the cost of processing in the account book, the corporation's income equivalent to the omitted sales or the cost of processing shall be deemed to have been leaked to the company. In this case, the special circumstance that it is necessary to prove that the cost of processing is not leaked to the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du3726, Jan. 11, 2002). Thus, the Plaintiff's assertion that it is reasonable as a bonus from the corporation's representative under Article 67 (1) 16) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

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

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

ii) Corporate Tax Act

○ Article 4 of the Corporate Tax Act

(1) Where the corporation to which all or part of revenue from assets or business legally accrues and the corporation to which it actually accrues are different, this Act shall apply to the corporation to which the revenue actually accrues.

(2) The provisions concerning the calculation of the amount of taxable income subject to corporate tax shall apply according to the substance, notwithstanding the name or form of such income, profits, etc.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

In filing a report on the tax base of corporate tax on the income for each business year under the provisions of Article 60 or in determining or revising the tax base of corporate tax under the provisions of Article 66 or 69, the amount included in gross income shall be disposed of according to the person to whom the income belongs as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as bonus, dividends, other outflow of

The former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17826, Dec. 30, 2002)

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

(1) The amount included in the calculation of earnings under the provisions of Article 67 of the Act shall be disposed of pursuant to the provisions of the following subparagraphs. The same shall also apply to non-profit domestic corporations

1. Where the amount included in the calculation of earnings has clearly leaked out of the company, the dividends, bonuses from the disposition of profits, other income, and other outflow from the company under each of the following items according to the person to whom they accrue: Provided, That where the accrual is unclear, it shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative (where the total number of stocks held by an officer who is not a minority shareholder under the provisions of Article 87 (2) and persons with a special relationship under the provisions of paragraph (4) of the same Article is 30% or more of the total number of stocks issued or total investment amount of the relevant corporation and the officer actually controls the operation of the corporation, he shall be deemed the representative, and where a corporation which has been exempted from withholding taxes under the provisions of Article 46 (12) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act reports that there is a separate representative among the officers who are stockholders, the reported person shall be the representative, and where there

(b) If the person to whom it belongs is an officer or employee, the bonus to that person;

ii) Income Tax Act

○ Article 20 of the Income Tax Act

(1) Earned income shall be the following income generated during the relevant year:

1. Class A:

(c) The end of the amount treated as a bonus under the Corporate Tax Act; and