Busan District Court 2009Guhap97 (Law No. 95, 2009)

Examination Income 2008-0096 (2008.09.09)

Disposition of income in the event that the amount omitted in sales has been disposed of to the account of revenues received;

Even if the omitted amount of sales was deposited into a corporation under the name of a corporation and there was no actual cash outflow, it is a debt to be repaid to the representative director in the debt account, which is the same as the actual amount leaked to the representative director at that time, so the bonus disposal is made to the representative.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 323,598,840 on April 1, 2008 against the plaintiff on April 1, 2008.

1. Acceptance of a judgment of the court of first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the first instance court’s first instance judgment Nos. 6, 4, and 5 are the same as the second instance judgment; and (b) the second instance judgment is the same as the second instance judgment; and (c) thus, the second instance court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of

[In addition, if a corporation did not enter its sales in the account book despite the fact of sales, the total amount omitted from sales should be deemed to have been leaked to a private company, barring any special circumstance, and even if a corporation did not have disclosed the sales revenue to a private company, it must prove that there is no special circumstance that the omission amount of sales was not leaked to a private company, and even if the corporation's income and cash, which is the counterpart account, has been entered in the temporary account, which is a temporary account, for which the contents of the sales revenue have not been confirmed, was stored in the account, and thus, if it is proved that the contents of the provisional account were to enter the short-term loan transactions from the representative director, and thus, it is not related to the corporation's income and expenses, and thus, the provisional account transactions are not related to the corporation's income and expenses. Thus, unless there is any special circumstance such as the processed debt which should have been entered in the account book as the representative director's profit and loss, it shall be deemed that the amount already leaked to the above counterpart (see Supreme Court Decision 201201Du261.7.201.

In the end, in this case, there is no proof that the non-party company's obligation to receive provisional payment against the plaintiff is a processing obligation under the pretext of the non-party company, or it is reasonable to deem that the transfer margin of this case was leaked to the plaintiff who is the representative of the non-party company, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion

2. Conclusion

Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, so the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.