1. The part against the plaintiff which is revoked under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

Defendant on August 3, 2015.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the 5th to 6th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 6th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the

(2) Whether Article 106 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is applicable or not), the representative director, etc., who is the actual manager of a corporation, uses the corporation's funds, is not based on the premise of early recovery, barring any special circumstances, and thus, it constitutes a outflow from the company as an expenditure itself for that amount.

Here, with respect to special circumstances that cannot be seen as not premised on recovery from the utilization time, it shall be determined individually and specifically by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the actual status of the representative director, etc. who is the principal agent of the embezzlement within the corporation, the degree of control over the corporation, the circumstances leading to the embezzlement, and whether the representative director, etc.’s intent is identical to the corporation’s intent or where it is difficult to deem that the corporate economic interest is in fact identical with the representative director, etc., and such special circumstances must be proved by

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20959, Jan. 28, 2010). Moreover, once income tax liability is established on the portion reverted to the representative director or actual manager, etc. of the outflow from the company, even if the person to whom the income tax belongs later returns the amount to the corporation, it cannot affect the tax liability already accrued.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Du3324 delivered on September 14, 2001, etc.). Meanwhile, a corporation committed an unlawful act, such as embezzlement of corporation funds for personal benefit regardless of its business affairs, by a person who is an employee of a corporation, thereby resulting from such unlawful act.