Whether the amount equivalent to the land price appropriated as losses has been disclosed from the company;

Since the land price appropriated as deductible expenses by the plaintiff was leaked to others, but its attribution is unclear, the representative director's income is disposed of as bonus and the disposition of imposing the change of income amount and the labor income tax is legitimate.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5-7.

A. In filing a corporate tax for the year 2002, the Plaintiff spent KRW 50,000,000 as the purchase price for the land outside ○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○, and five parcels of land, and included the said amount in the deductible expenses.

B. The Defendant, on the ground that the above KRW 50,00,000 was not disbursed as land price and it was leaked out to the private place and its ownership is unclear, issued a disposition of income as bonus to the representative director of the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income pursuant to the above disposition of income on November 4, 2005. On March 3, 2006, the Defendant issued a notice of tax payment totaling KRW 9,432,350,00, including the earned income tax amount of KRW 8,983,197, and additional tax of KRW 449,159.

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the above 50,000,000 won was not paid as land price but distributed out to the private place, and the ownership is unclear. Accordingly, all of the notice of change in the income amount of this case and the notice of tax payment are lawful. Accordingly, the plaintiff alleged that the above 50,000,000 won was not paid as land price. However, the plaintiff treated that the amount equivalent to the above amount was paid as land price to the plaintiff by the representative director, and the above representative director's receipt was not a false debt on the account book, but is not a actual debt, and thus, the above 50,000,000 won was not leaked out. The plaintiff sought the cancellation of the notice of change in the income amount of this case or the notice

B. Determination

(1) Determination on the claim to revoke a tax notice of earned income tax payment

In the event the disposition of income and the notice of change in the amount of income of the tax authority are given, the tax liability of the corporation that is the withholding agent automatically established and determined on the date of receipt of the notice of change in the amount of income. Thus, the subsequent notice of tax payment constitutes a disposition to collect the already established and fixed amount of tax liability, not a disposition of wage and salary income tax, and the subsequent notice of tax payment also constitutes an independent disposition aimed at separate effects, and as long as the disposition of tax imposition and collection, which is the preceding act, is not automatically null and void, it cannot be asserted that the illegality of the disposition of tax payment, in principle, is not succeeded to the disposition of tax

However, the Supreme Court did not recognize the previous change of income as an administrative disposition subject to a revocation lawsuit, on the other hand, on the one hand, the Supreme Court held that only automatic final and conclusive tax without any way to dispute the establishment or scope of tax liability through a lawsuit can claim the illegality of the collection disposition by exceptionally disputing the establishment or scope of tax liability, and recognized it as an administrative disposition subject to a revocation lawsuit by changing the previous opinion on April 20, 2006.

Therefore, if there is a dispute over the establishment or scope of a tax obligation with respect to an automatic final determination method, it shall be interpreted that the notice of change in the amount of income should be asserted in the case of a dispute over the establishment or scope of a tax obligation, and that the illegality of a collection disposition should not be asserted. Furthermore, in the case of seeking the revocation of a notice of change in the amount of income by disputing the establishment of a tax obligation, there is no

In light of the above legal principles in this case, the part concerning wage and salary income tax in the instant tax payment notice constitutes a collection disposition seeking the performance of tax liability for wage and salary income tax automatically established and confirmed by the notice of change in the amount of income (the part concerning additional tax is deemed a new disposition of imposition) and the Plaintiff sought revocation of the notice of change in the amount of income in this case while disputing the establishment of tax liability for wage and salary income tax. Thus, the part concerning wage and salary income tax in the instant tax payment notice as to

(2) Determination on the notice of change in income amount and the claim for revocation of penalty tax imposition

The facts that the Plaintiff included KRW 50,000,000 for the land price in deductible expenses at the time of filing a corporate tax return for the year 2002 are acknowledged as above. The above KRW 50,000,000 for the land price did not conflict between the parties, and there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount equivalent to KRW 50,00,000 for the land price was treated as deposited to the Plaintiff in the form of the representative director’s deposit on the Plaintiff’s account book, and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount was treated as KRW 50,000 for the land price. (According to the testimony of the witness Kim○-○, the above evidence No. 12 of the evidence No. 12 of the Plaintiff’s evidence, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s above assertion solely on the basis of the above evidence No. 12,50,000,000 for the land price, and the representative director is unclear, so the Defendant’s notice of disposition of income and penalty tax in accordance with this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of tax imposition of wage and salary income in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and thus, the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.