Cheongju District Court-2018-Gu Partnership-2358 ( November 22, 2018)

Cho Jae-2017- Daejeon-4093 ( November 22, 2018)

Whether the legality of the disposition of bonus and additional cost are recognized

If a corporation appropriates the cost of processing in the account book, the amount equivalent to the processing cost shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the company, except in extenuating circumstances, and the burden of proving the necessary cost shall be proved by the taxpayer.

2018Nu1559 The revocation of revocation of the notice of change in income amount.

】 】

○ Head of tax office

November 22, 2018

April 24, 2019

May 15, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On January 9, 2017, the defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax) of corporate tax belonging to the year 2015, with the amount of income as AA, with the bonus belonging to the plaintiff in 2015 as the bonus belonging to the plaintiff, and the disposition of imposition of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the appeal do not differ significantly from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence presented to the first instance court and this court were examined, the fact-finding and the judgment of the first instance court rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable (it is alleged that the Plaintiff has the portion of expenses not appropriated as expenses despite having been disbursed as business purposes. However, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff cannot be seen as either whether the items alleged by the Plaintiff were actually disbursed as expenses or not separately from the expenditure already reflected in the course of each disposition of this case, and thus,

B. Accordingly, the reasoning for the entry in this case is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the amendment of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

○ Amendment of “00,000,000 won” in the 19th sentence of the first instance trial to “00,000,000 won” on the 4th sentence of the said judgment.

○ In the first instance court’s judgment, many of the pages 7, 15 are amended to “any”.

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.