Changwon District Court 2013Guhap20279 ( December 24, 2013)

Cho High Court Decision 2012Da4753 (Law No. 11, 2013)

It is reasonable to regard the provisional payment and the recognition interest for the deceased representative director as the successor's succession to the plaintiff and dispose of the bonus.

The provisional payment for the representative director and the plaintiff who died in the balance sheet and the asset statement of the corporation for each business year is included in the "short-term claim for shareholders, executives, and employees", and the corporation calculated the interest rate recognized as the provisional payment and disposed of the bonus to the plaintiff after the representative director died, and since the provisional payment for the plaintiff was not recovered until the corporation closes its business, the provisional payment for the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been reverted to the plaintiff.

Article 4 of the Income Tax Act shall be classified.

2014Nu10137 Global income and revocation of disposition

Economic Zone

○ Head of tax office

Changwon District Court Decision 2013Guhap20279 Decided December 24, 2013

July 17, 2014

August 28, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The disposition of imposition of global income tax, OOO, and OOO(including additional tax, OOO), which belongs to the Plaintiff on August 6, 2012, and the disposition of imposition of global income tax, OOO, and OOO(including additional tax, OOO, and OOO) that belongs to the Plaintiff on August 14, 2012, which belongs to the Plaintiff on August 14, 2009.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as stipulated in paragraph (2); and (b) except for the addition of "matters of additional judgment of the court of second instance" to the matters newly asserted in the court of first instance as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of

2. Parts in height:

(a)Paragraph 2. D. (1) of the first instance judgment is followed as follows:

① According to the purport of the evidence No. 10 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as holding office as an auditor who is an executive officer of ○○ Electronic from September 12, 2006 to the date of closing argument in the trial. ② As seen earlier, ○○ Electronic included the provisional payment amount for BB and the plaintiff in the balance sheet of each business year, the asset statement, and the shareholders, executive officers, employees, short-term claims. When disposing of the interest rate on the provisional payment, the provisional payment amount shall be deemed as bonus for BB before the death of BB, and the provisional payment amount for the plaintiff shall be deemed as bonus for the plaintiff after the death, and ③ there is no data to collect the provisional payment for the plaintiff until the closure of ○○ Electronic Business, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the above provisional payment amount and recognized as bonus amount for the plaintiff as an executive officer, and it is reasonable to deem that the above provisional payment amount were included in the evidence No. 3, No. 6-1, No. 12, 15, and 15 of the witness evidence.

B. On the 5th judgment of the first instance court, the 5th judgment "court" is regarded as "court of the first instance court."

3. Matters to be determined additionally by the second instance;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 48(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a taxpayer has justifiable grounds for failing to perform his/her duty, the relevant penalty tax shall not be imposed. The Defendant’s disposition of this case without going through the notice of change in income amount under the Income Tax Act, which led to the Plaintiff’s failure to guarantee the opportunity for additional return and payment that may be exempted from penalty tax. As such, each of

(b) Additional relevant statutes of the second instance;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the "Additional Acts and subordinate statutes related to the second instance."

C. Determination

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 8, 14, and 15, the defendant notified the plaintiff of the change of income amount on January 3, 201, and it can be recognized that the plaintiff received it around that time. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.