Whether the loan fee received by the representative director of the company after lending the company's construction business license is attributed to the company's revenue (affirmative)

If the representative director of the company lends the company's construction business license and receives the lending fee, the above amount received by the representative director representing the company shall belong to the company's revenue, unless there are special circumstances.

Articles 2 and 9 of the Corporate Tax Act

Chang Gyeong General Construction Company

Head of Gwangju District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1356 delivered on July 13, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence adopted by the court below, tried to obtain a construction business license and obtain a construction business license from the non-party 1 to borrow the name of the licensed company without a construction business license. Thus, the non-party 2 (retirement of the representative director on December 3, 1983) who was the representative director at the time of the plaintiff company received a 1,300,000 won from the above non-party 1 and lent the above construction business license. However, the above non-party 2 did not accept the plaintiff company's report of construction work cost 41,580,000 won (value 37,80,000, value-added tax 3,780,000 won and the non-party 2's official seal on the non-party 1's construction contract for construction work as stated in the non-party 2's report of construction work, and the non-party 2 did not obtain an official seal on the non-party 1's report of construction work completion.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

If Nonparty 2, who had been the representative director of the Plaintiff company at the time of the original adjudication period, borrowed a construction business license of the Plaintiff company and received gold KRW 1,300,000 from the title trust agreement, barring any special circumstance, the above amount received by Nonparty 2, the representative director of the Plaintiff company, should be attributed to the income amount of the Plaintiff company. However, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the representative director of the Plaintiff company, on the ground that the above amount was not deposited in the Plaintiff company, and the lower court did not regard it as the income amount of the Plaintiff company.

Ultimately, the grounds of appeal No. 2 are with merit. In this respect, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below, for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)