Suwon District Court-2017-Guhap-68524 (2018.06)

The disposition of the amount released from the company is legitimate as a bonus, and the disposition imposed on the representative director as a profit from the exemption of liability is legitimate.

(1) The disposition of corporate tax is legitimate since it cannot be deemed to have been made with the decision of the court of first instance because it cannot be deemed to have been made with the decision of the court, and the bonus is legitimate, and the removal of the representative director's provisional payment was made with the exemption of the corporation's obligations.

Article 18 of the Corporate Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2018Nu66564 (Law No. 13, 2019)

○○ Construction Corporation

1. The head of △△ Tax Office;

National Rotations

May 16, 2019

June 13, 2019

1. The following part of the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked:

The part of the instant lawsuit, which exceeds KRW 0,000,000 (including additional taxes) among the disposition imposing corporate tax on the Plaintiff on December 2, 2016 by the head of △△ Tax Office on the Plaintiff on December 2, 2016, shall be dismissed.

2. All remaining appeals against the Plaintiff’s head of △△ Tax Office and appeals against the head of △△ Regional Tax Office are dismissed.

3. The plaintiff bears 80% of the total litigation cost between the plaintiff and the defendant △△ Director, and the defendant bears 20% of the total litigation cost, and the appeal cost between the plaintiff and the defendant △ Director of the Regional Tax Office shall be

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The imposition of corporate tax of KRW 0,00,000,000 (including additional tax) made against the Plaintiff on December 2, 2016 by the head of △△△ Tax Office against the Plaintiff on December 2, 2016, and the director of the regional tax office of △△△△ Regional Tax Office of December 1, 2016 of the Plaintiff’s bonus and year to which the income belongs as bonus and year to which the Plaintiff belongs, shall be revoked on December 1, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

The phrase "0,00,000,000 won" in the 2nd 12th 13 lines is "3,147,59,002 won for sales promotion in the account of 130 persons under the pretext of sales promotion fees and sales promotion fees for the account of 130 persons" and "0,000,000,000 won under the pretext of sales promotion fees for the account of 130 persons".

○ From the 3rd bottom, the part “to be included in gross income” is called “to be included in gross income, and to include the most fee of KRW 00,000,000 (the supply value of KRW 00,000,000) as if it were paid to AAA without any service transaction, in gross income.”

○ From the 3rd bottom to 40 5 lines "the imposition of the corporate tax of this case" (hereinafter referred to as "the imposition of the corporate tax of this case") and the part "each of the dispositions of this case" (hereinafter referred to as "each of the dispositions of this case") shall be "the imposition of the initial corporate tax of this case".

The phrase "each of the dispositions of this case" of 2 lines under the 3rd bottom shall be read as "the notice of change in the income amount of this case and the disposition of initial corporate tax".

○ At the bottom of 3, the following shall be added to one line:

"The head of △△△ Tax Office, around April 22, 2019, excluded the amount of KRW 00,000,000 as seen in the false purchase of AAAA around April 2, 2019 from the gross income, and cancelled ex officio the portion of the corporate tax amount of KRW 00,000,000,000, which was initially imposed and disposed of for the business year 2014 on the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff of the disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 00,00,000,000, which remains after ex officio cancellation," and "the disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 0,00,000,000, which remains after the disposition of revocation, refers to the notice of the change in the amount of income and the disposition of imposing the corporate tax of this case."

2. Whether an ex officio revocation of the initial disposition on imposition of corporate tax is legitimate;

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012).

ex officio, the defendant revoked ex officio the part (00,000,000 won) exceeding the corporate tax imposition (0,000,000 won) of the initial corporate tax imposition disposition (0,000,000 won) of this case. Thus, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation of the ex officio revocation by the head of △△△△ Tax Office among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful as it has no interest in lawsuit because it has already become invalid.

3. Relevant statutes;

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance.

4. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

○ From 8 to 2 lines “in accordance with the evidence cited above,” the part cited in the above is as follows: “The evidence cited above is the sum of Gap evidence Nos. 13, 14, 18 to 20, and Eul evidence No. 5.”

○ 9 13. The following shall be added to the 13.

If the purpose of accounting of the instant money, as alleged by the Plaintiff, was to indicate as if the funds were actually paid only on the account book without divulging the funds, it would be reasonable to select another processing debt account as the counter party account of the processing cost rather than the representative director who is widely used to raise the funds of a corporation by facilitating the withdrawal of the representative director, and to select another processing debt account as the counter party account of the processing cost (Supreme Court Decision 2010Du382 Decided July 26, 2012 or Supreme Court Decision 2017Nu4080 Decided August 23, 2018, which became final and conclusive by dismissal of the final appeal for non-trial trial, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is not appropriate to be invoked in the instant case, because of the difference in the issue).

③ Examining the details of the account transaction after 00 persons, including △△△△, transferred the instant money to the said name account, some of the money transferred to the said name account was deposited to the Plaintiff’s account via Kim Mandong or BBB’s account, and some of the money was deposited to the Plaintiff’s account via the third party’s account. In addition, the said name account was immediately deposited to the Plaintiff’s account from the said name account to the third party’s account, and some of the money was deposited to the said name account from the said name account to the third party’s account, and was deposited to the Plaintiff via the Kim Ban’s account, and was deposited to the said name account from the said name account to the third party, and was deposited to the Plaintiff via the Plaintiff’s account. As such, the said name account was not consistent, and the distance between the time of withdrawal from the Plaintiff’s account and the time of deposit to the Plaintiff’s account was 4.9 billion won. Furthermore, some of the instant money was not deposited to the Plaintiff’s account (the Plaintiff’s claim of KRW 000 million.

④ While the Plaintiff and Kim Man legal representative of the Plaintiff reported the corporate tax for the 2013 business year to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and Kim Man legal representative was indicted on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by falsely reporting that the instant money was paid as sales promotion expenses and sales agency fees, even though there was no provision of services related to sales from 000 persons, including △△△△△, etc. The Plaintiff and Kim Man legal representative of the Plaintiff were indicted on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. On December 8, 2017, the Plaintiff and Kim Man legal representative were convicted of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (2017Gahap780 case), and all appeals filed by the Plaintiff, Kim Man legal representative, and the Prosecutor were dismissed on May 3, 2018 (Seoul High Court Decision 2018No399), and on August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff and Kim Man legal representative’s appeals were all dismissed (hereinafter referred to as “related criminal case”).

According to the judgment of the appellate court related to the relevant criminal case, Park Jong-chul, in the investigative agency of the relevant criminal case, the plaintiff's accounting officer did not include only the service cost in order to reduce the corporate tax because the plaintiff's interest in 2013 was high. The plaintiff's representative director Kim Jong-tae stated that the plaintiff's act of remitting the above remittance for the direct purpose of corporate tax evasion and the disposal of the expenses incidental thereto are divided into the sales promotion cost because the sales promotion cost is too high.In the case of the disposal of the expenses from Kim Man-kum, the plaintiff stated to the effect that the amount of the corporate tax would be reduced and the amount of the corporate tax would have come to exceed 0 billion won if he had known of the cost.

No. 3"in the first 8 line at the bottom of the 9th place, the term "no. 3" shall be read as "no. 5."

Then, following the 10th 5 line “Non-Submission” portion, the phrase “(the Plaintiff alleged that Park Jong-young, a person in charge of accounting, was unable to destroy, cut off, and submit the Plaintiff’s financial data. However, the entries in the evidence Nos. 23 through 25 alone are insufficient to recognize the above assertion).”

○ Part 81-3 of "Article 81-3", and Article 81 of "Article 81" of 12 below "Article 81" shall be raised from the bottom of 12 pages to the "Article 81-4", respectively.

5. Conclusion

Of the instant lawsuit, the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax that the above Defendant voluntarily canceled against the head of △△ Tax Office is unlawful, and thus, it shall be dismissed. The remaining claims against the head of △△ Tax Office and the claims against the head of the regional tax office of △△△△

Among the parts concerning Defendant 1’s decision of the first instance court and the part concerning Defendant 1’s decision of the head of the △△ Tax Office, the above defendant’s decision is unfair, and thus, this part of the decision of the first instance is revoked

The remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all appeals filed by the plaintiff against the head of the tax office of △△ and against the head of the regional tax office of △△△ for Defendant △ are dismissed.