Suwon District Court-2011-Gu Partnership-3310 ( October 16, 2014)

(as with the judgment of the first instance court) In case of constructing apartment units by giving a package contract to the contractor, the amount of income shall be appropriated in accordance with the rate of work progress.

(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) where construction, etc. constitutes a construction with a contract period of at least one year, and where an apartment is newly constructed and sold by means of a package contract with the contractor to build an apartment, the initial disposition in which the amount of income is calculated according to the progress rate of the construction project

2014Nu2357 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

○○ Co., Ltd. and 2

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap3310 Decided January 16, 2014

2015.01.28

2015.02.10

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The Defendant’s imposition of the income tax on the Plaintiff Company AA (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) is revoked in excess of the amount stated in the “justifiable amount of tax” in the disposition of imposition of each corporate tax and the disposition of withholding tax on August 27, 2009. On August 27, 2009, the Defendant revoked both the disposition of imposition of each tax listed in the separate sheet No. 3 attached hereto and the disposition of imposition of each tax listed in the separate sheet No. 4 that the Plaintiff Company filed in the first instance court for confirmation of the invalidity of the portion stated in the separate sheet No. 2. The Defendant sought confirmation of the invalidity of the corresponding disposition on Oct. 14, 2014, and reduced the purport of the claim that the portion of the disposition of imposition of income tax on December 29, 2005 and the portion of the disposition of imposition of tax on withholding tax (other income) in the separate sheet No. 20065, respectively. 1).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the cases of dismissal or addition as set forth in paragraph (2) above, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

○ 5 10,11st "1,205,261,380 won" shall be read as "1,205,621,380 won".

○ From the 9th to the 5th below below, to the 8th below.

○ 9 The following shall be added to the 1st place following:

(n) On October 14, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff Company of the reduction of KRW 52,008,000 among income tax (other income) accrued in March 1, 2003, and KRW 13,882,00 among income tax (other income) accrued in the year 2004, and the income tax (other income) accrued in the year 2004, on December 29, 2014, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff Company a notice of the reduction of KRW 23,320,00 among income tax (other income) accrued in the year 205 and the income tax (other income) accrued in the year 2005, and notified the Plaintiff Company of the reduction of KRW 7,876,00 among income tax (other income) and the income tax (other income tax (other income) accrued in the year 206 (i.e., the previous disposition imposing corporate tax and income tax was finally modified as stated in the separate list 1, and 2 list."

○ from the 17th to the 13th (A) shall be deleted.

○ 29th 8th Sheet "..............." add the following:

In addition, Plaintiff CC asserts to the effect that Plaintiff 2 stolen its name or merely lent its name. The fact of ownership of shares is sufficient to prove it by the tax authority’s list of shareholders, detailed statement of stock transfer or corporate register, etc. However, even if it appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, if there are circumstances, such as the illegal use of shareholder name or the registration of a borrowed name other than the real shareholder’s name, the actual shareholder cannot be deemed to be a shareholder, but the nominal owner who asserts that he is not a shareholder should prove that the Plaintiff CC was not a shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615, Jul. 9, 2004). The reason why the Plaintiff CC was close and the evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff CC was a misappropriation or a second shareholder as alleged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance on the remaining claim is justifiable. The plaintiffs are all dismissed.