The case holding that even in a case where the non-entry in the book of a corporation is the claim for indemnity against a third party, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged as a bonus for the representative because it is clearly revealed to the third party, and it is not immediately known to the third party.

The case holding that even in a case where the non-entry in the book of a corporation is a claim for indemnity against a third party, and thus, it cannot be recognized as a bonus for the representative because the person to whom it belongs clearly appears to be the third party, and it is not immediately known to the third party.

Article 32 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 94-2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Attorney Lee Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu280 delivered on June 20, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below revoked the tax disposition in this case, on the ground that the gross income omitted from this case due to the fact recognized by macroscopic evidence could not be deemed to constitute “a clear case where it was leaked outside the company” as provided in Article 94-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree

The theory of lawsuit is clear that the above claim for indemnity is not appropriated in the balance sheet (No. 4) and it seems that the gross income of this case is not reserved in the company, and it is the purport that it should be deemed that it was leaked outside the company in the situation where it is not immediately known. However, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not enter in the account book is not the disposal price (cash) of the real estate of this case, but the plaintiff's claim for indemnity against the non-party Geum River Development Co., Ltd. (the plaintiff reported as a reorganization claim by the plaintiff). According to the records, if it is deemed to be out the company as alleged in the theory, the person to whom it belongs clearly shows that it is the above Geum River Development even if it can be included in other outflow or other income under Article 94-2 (1) 1 (c) of the above Decree. Thus, even if it can not be acknowledged as the bonus to the plaintiff, this conclusion of the court below that the tax disposition of this case is unlawful shall eventually be invalid and invalid.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)