Suwon District Court 2012Guhap16283 ( October 30, 2013)

the representative director of performance on behalf of the debtor shall pay the

The repayment by subrogation of the debt, and the amount paid by the representative director thereafter shall be deemed to be the full amount of the payment by the representative director recorded in the account book to be against the plaintiff.

Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2013Nu31020 global income and revocation of disposition

IsaA

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap16283 Decided October 30, 2013

August 19, 2014

September 16, 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 is revoked, and all of the disposition imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on the global income tax of 2005 for May 1, 201, for global income tax of 2006, for global income tax of 2006 as of June 1, 2007, for global income tax of 2007, for global income tax of 009, for global income tax of 009, for global income tax of 09, for global income tax of 2010, for global income tax of 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

This Court's explanation is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) From March 31, 2002 to November 29, 2002, the Plaintiff borrowed an amount equivalent to KRW OOO to BB chemical, and the Defendant found the amount that the Plaintiff received from BB chemical as the provisional payment that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff.

(2) If the provisional payment that BB chemical paid as above belongs to the Plaintiff, the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s provisional payment that the Plaintiff paid to BB chemical from March 31, 2002 to November 29 of the same year should be included in the Plaintiff’s provisional payment payment details. However, the Defendant identified that the amount equivalent to the above OOOO won was the amount by subrogation for the BB chemical of thisCC, and excluded the Defendant calculated the provisional payment amount by mistake against the Plaintiff.

(3) If the Plaintiff paid an amount equivalent to the provisional payment for BB chemical from March 31, 2002 to November 29, 2002, to BB chemical, for the purpose of repaying the provisional payment for BB chemical, the provisional payment for BB chemical thereafter should also be deemed as the provisional payment for thisCC. Therefore, there is no room for the Plaintiff to incur the provisional payment for the Plaintiff.

(4) Even if the provisional payment stated on the president of BB chemical account after the death of thisCC is considered as the provisional payment against the plaintiff, the provisional payment shall be excluded from the provisional payment against the plaintiff at least, since it is not the amount paid to the plaintiff from December 20, 2002, OOOOOO on December 28, 2002, OOOOOOO on December 20, 203, 2003, and OOOOOOO on December 31, 2004.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From January 19, 2002, the Plaintiff, a major shareholder of BB chemical and the general partner, had been actually operating BB chemical from January 16, 2008, where the agreement on the division of inherited property was concluded among the inheritors of thisCC.

(2) The provisional payment made by the representative director of BB chemical as of the death date of thisCC was a total of OOO members.

(3) BB chemical stated in the ledger of the account that the temporary payment was made to the representative director even after the death of thisCC, and such amount paid reaches KRW OO as of the end of 2009.

(4) The plaintiff transferred the amount to BB chemical account from March 31, 2002 to November 29, 2002, which was entered as "the provisional payment collection of the representative director on the books of BB chemical." (5) Meanwhile, in the lawsuit of claim for the division of inherited property filed by ADD on January 29, 2002, the plaintiff alleged that the above amount should be excluded from inherited property because it was spent to pay approximately KRW BB chemical corporate tax on the sales price received by selling the shares of thisCC on January 29, 2002. However, the court rejected the plaintiff's assertion and decided that the plaintiff paid the total amount of the sales price of the shares to the remaining inheritors in installments according to the inherited property.

(6) According to the above court's decision, the Plaintiff and DoD, EE Ri, FG Ri, GG Ri, and HaH completed an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter "the instant agreement on division of inherited property") on January 16, 208. According to the above agreement, the remaining inheritors except for the Plaintiff share the amount (Article 3), ② the amount paid as BB chemical rent after the date on which the Plaintiff commenced the inheritance (Article 7 (2)), ③ the remaining heir is obliged to pay the amount as stipulated in the above agreement on the collection and disposal of inherited property (Article 7 (1) 2). The Plaintiff's remaining amount should be stated as the reasons for the conclusion of the agreement on the division of inherited property (Article 1 (2) 2) including the amount of OOB paid for the remainder of the heir's acquisition of taxes on behalf of BB chemical, and the Plaintiff's remaining amount should be stated as the reasons for the conclusion of the agreement on the division of inherited property (Article 1 (2) 1 (3) 5).7).

(1) The nature of money paid by the Plaintiff to BB chemical

In light of the above facts, 1) if the Plaintiff borrowed 20 POB funds from the 20 POB manager, 2) the Plaintiff did not present the disposal documents, 2) the Plaintiff stated that the 20 AO director paid the 20 POP funds from the 20 AO manager’s debt-payment method, 3) the Plaintiff paid the 2O chemical funds from the 20 AO manager’s debt-payment method, 4) the 20 POP manager’s debt-payment method to the Plaintiff, 20 POP manager’s debt-payment method, and 3) the Plaintiff did not claim that the 2OP director paid the 20 POP funds from the 20 AO manager’s debt-payment method. The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have separately lent the 20 OP manager’s debt-payment method, i.e., the Plaintiff’s debt-payment method to the 20 POP manager’s new debt-payment method.

The plaintiff asserts that some of the provisional payments listed on the ledger of BB chemical accounts did not be paid to the plaintiff. However, the president of each account states that the provisional payment was made to the plaintiff, and unless there are special circumstances to deny the contents of the president of the above account, the provisional payment made by the representative director listed on BB chemical account books after the death of thisCC shall be deemed to be made to the plaintiff in full.

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, since the plaintiff paid the BB chemical from March 31, 2002 to November 29 of the same year after the death of thisCC, the plaintiff paid the debt of thisCC to the plaintiff in advance. Since the amount equivalent to approximately KRW OOO which the representative director paid the BB chemical from March 31, 2002 to the representative director paid all belongs to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.