Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Busan District Court 2009Guhap196 ( August 28, 2009)
Case Number of the previous trial
Cho High Court Decision 2008Da0726 ( October 20, 2008)
Title
Evidence of the Certificate
Summary
It is difficult to see that the confirmation document has been prepared against the will of the originator because there are no particular circumstances such as the detailed descriptions of the amount illegally appropriated in each item, such as entertainment expenses, and the forced preparation of a confirmation document.
The decision
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of 21,703,420 won of corporate tax for the year 2002 and 85,966,110 won of corporate tax for the year 2004 and corporate tax for the year 2004 and the notice of change in income amount on August 6, 2007 (the income amount shall be the maximumB, income type recognition, and the income amount shall be 96,69,060 won for the year 2002 and 101,117,741 won for the year 203,26,547 won for the year 204, 85,758,80 won for the year 205, and 124,49,630 won for the year 206) shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Acceptance of a judgment of the court of first instance;
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “Partial entry No. 5” in the 7th 13-14th 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance is the entry in the evidence No. 5 and No. 18; and the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial is the same as the entry in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the matters asserted by the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and
Judgment on Additional Claim
Although the Plaintiff alleged that each disposition of this case violates the principle of no taxation without law, according to Articles 28(1)4 (a) and 27 subparag. 1 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8141 of Dec. 30, 2006), and Article 49(1)2 (a) and (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19815 of Dec. 30, 2006), the amount calculated as prescribed by Presidential Decree among the interest on loans paid by a domestic corporation that acquired or held assets not directly used for its business during each business year by the domestic corporation, shall not be included in the calculation of losses. Thus, the Defendant’s each disposition of this case cannot be deemed as violating the principle of no taxation without law, considering that the instant art work of this case was an asset without permission for the Plaintiff’s business.
The Plaintiff asserted that each of the dispositions of this case, which was written by KimA, violates the basis taxation or the principle of substantial taxation. However, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the written evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the written confirmation prepared by KimA, which was unreasonably appropriated in the content that the expenses of KRW 491,291,778 were unfairly appropriated as deductible expenses from 2002 to 2006, shall be divided into items such as entertainment expenses, welfare expenses, travel expenses, transportation expenses, education and training expenses, etc., and the tax investigation was completed at the time when the tax investigation was conducted considerably, and as such, the said written confirmation does not violate the principle of substantial taxation or the principle of substantial taxation.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.