Seocho 2014west 2456 ( November 19, 2014)

In the case of a revised report of a corporation based on the information about the release of funds, it shall be applicable to the outflow from the company.

Where a former representative of a corporation has received a statement of explanation of the settlement of funds, it shall be deemed that the relevant funds have been discharged from the company even if it was reported to be an omission amount

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2015Guhap5568 Notice of Change in Amount of Income

AAAA

Seoul Regional Tax Office

July 10, 2015

August 28, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The representative from the date of incorporation as a corporation established on July 11, 2005 to March 31, 201 from the date of its establishment to the date of March 31, 201 to the date of its establishment in order to engage in the heat farm film manufacturing business is Jung-B, and the representative from April 1, 201 to the date of its establishment is Jung-B.

B. On July 17, 2013, the Defendant notified the CC, who is its spouse, PB and PB, of a statement of explanation about the source of funds to increase the deposit amount, etc. On August 12, 2013, the Defendant explained that “AB and PCC were the source of funds obtained KRW 3.8 billion from the Plaintiff to the Defendant on August 5, 2013, and that the Plaintiff was fully returned on August 7, 2013.” From October 14, 2013 to February 15, 2014, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the B, the saidCC, and the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff confirmed that the sales was omitted from 2009 to 2013: the Plaintiff’s income accrued from 2010 to 2012, 280, 297, 2016, 207, 2017, 2016, 2017.

C. On April 9, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on November 19, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

AB returned approximately KRW 3.8 billion to the Plaintiff before the instant disposition, and accordingly the Plaintiff returned the amount that was released from the company, and the Plaintiff returned the revised corporate tax return. In this process, the Plaintiff did not receive any notification from the Defendant, such as tax investigation, etc., and did not know at all that it was corrected due to tax investigation, etc. Nevertheless, the instant disposition that the Defendant did not dispose of the collected amount as internal reserve pursuant to the main sentence of Article 106(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and the said amount still belonged to the

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act upon delegation under Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where it is clear that the amount included in gross income under Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act has been leaked out of the company, it shall be disposed of as dividends, bonuses from the disposal of profits, other income, and other outflow from the company according to the person to whom it reverts, and where it is unclear to whom it belongs, it shall be deemed that it has been reverted to the representative. Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that "where a domestic corporation collects illegally flown amount, such as omitting sales, processing expenses, etc., within the deadline for filing a revised return under Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and files a report after including it in gross income for tax adjustment, it shall be deemed that the income has been retained: Provided, That this shall not apply to any of the following cases where it receives a notice of explanation from the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment, and subparagraph 4 of the same paragraph "where it is deemed that

As to the amount reverted to the representative, etc. of the relevant corporation, once the income tax liability becomes effective, it shall not affect the income tax liability already established even if the amount was returned to the relevant corporation later (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du7350, Dec. 24, 1999). However, in principle, the disposition of income is conducted pursuant to Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. However, in cases where the amount was recovered by voluntary efforts made by the relevant corporation within the prescribed period, the amount is deemed not to have been out of the company, and thus, the relevant corporation is not subject to the disposition of income under the above principle, thereby giving the opportunity of voluntary correction to the relevant corporation. Accordingly, even if the amount was recovered by the relevant corporation, if it was not by voluntary efforts made by the relevant corporation, it is the proviso to the same paragraph that the amount should be disposed of again in principle, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it violated the essential contents of property rights guaranteed under the Constitution or it was imposed without the attribution of income (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du379, Nov. 209, 209,

2) According to the statements in Section B, Nos. 3 through 7, Section B-1 and Section B-2, and Section B-1 and Section B-2, the court below determined that the Plaintiff remitted each of KRW 370,00,000 to the Plaintiff on August 5, 2013, and KRW 3,528,180,894 on August 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a revised return on corporate tax, etc. on August 9, 2013, and paid the revised return. The court below determined B-B was the largest shareholder who owned KRW 45% of the Plaintiff’s shares from 2009 to 2013. From the incorporation of the Plaintiff to March 2011, the Plaintiff’s representative director at the time of the revised return and the Plaintiff’s representative director at the time of August 9, 2013, as seen earlier.

The following facts revealed in light of the above facts: (1) although the tax authority did not notify the Plaintiff of the explanation of taxation data directly, the reasons and progress of the notification of explanation of taxation data; (2) the tax authority could expect that the Plaintiff corporation should confirm the outflow of the sales amount of the corporation in the process of demanding the Plaintiff corporation to the former representative director of the Plaintiff corporation; (3) especially the representative director of the Plaintiff corporation was the largest shareholder of the Plaintiff corporation; (3) it is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff corporation discovered the outflow of the corporation and reported the revised return of the outflow of the corporation; and (4) Article 106 (4) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "other cases similar to those provided for in subparagraphs 1 through 5 of the Corporate Tax Act and it is recognized that the correction of the amount of the corporate tax should not be made in advance; and (4) it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff's voluntary notification of the outflow of the corporation was made within the scope of 1B0.3 billion won.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.