Cho High 2013 Mine15 (No. 22, 2014)

There is no circumstance to regard the amount leaked from a corporation as a provisional payment.

A loan agreement, etc. which was not submitted at the time of a tax investigation was later submitted, there is no details of payment of interest between the parties to the transaction, and it cannot be deemed that a corporation lent it in light of the details of income and the status of real estate

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

Gwangju District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-10561 ( October 22, 2015)

Each capital increase consideration (hereinafter referred to as "each capital increase consideration") and each of these capital increase consideration shall be as follows:

C. Defendant’s tax investigation and notice of change in income amount to Plaintiff

From June 11, 2012 to July 30, 2012, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff

In addition, 200 million won out of 1 billion won in total of the subscription price for new shares of Jung in each of the instant shares offering of this case

Payment of KRW 40 million, each of the total subscription price of KRW 50 million, KRW 00,000, and KRW 500,000.

by paying 20 million won, the sum of 1.8 billion won [=240 million won + 1.5 billion won + 1.5 billion won

80 million won (=520 million won x 3) appears to have been leaked outside of the company and to have been reverted to the AA et al.

H. The bonus (240 million won) paid to PaA by the representative director of the Plaintiff, the inside director of the Plaintiff, and each bonus (520 million won each), each of the bonus (520 million won) paid to PaA by the Plaintiff, and the shareholder fixed by the Plaintiff.

Each disposition of income with dividends (520 million won) on September 6, 2012 and attached Table 1 against the plaintiff on September 6, 2012

The notice of change in income amount, such as the record, was made (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case").

(d) Procedures of the previous trial; and

On December 5, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for a trial seeking the revocation of the instant disposition.

However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on January 22, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (if any, numbered)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading;

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff lent a total of KRW 1.8 billion to regular AA and three others as the subscription price for new shares;

Since the Plaintiff has a loan claim equivalent to KRW 1.8 billion against JungA and three other parties, the above money is equivalent to the above amount.

No such outflow from the company, and the above 1.8 billion won and 3 others shall be deemed to have been leased from the plaintiff

The amount of debt corresponding to the above amount is attributable to the AA and the third party.

There is no such premise. Nevertheless, the above KRW 1.8 billion is different from the foregoing premise, and the above KRW 1.8 billion is paid to Jung and three others.

The instant disposition taken by deeming that it was reverted to the State is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

The whole purport of the pleadings is added to the evidence mentioned above and the statements mentioned in Gap evidence Nos. 55 to 59

The following facts may be recognized:

1) At the time of the first capital increase increase with respect to the instant case, Jeong at the time of the first capital increase with respect to 80 million won from BB on November 29, 2010

The principal's subscription price for new shares was paid in KRW 320 million, and deposited KRW 160 million in each account with KRW 00,000,000, and KRW 100,000. The name of KRW 00,000,000.

The purchase price of new shares was 160 million won each.

2) 1.8 billion won in the agricultural bank account in the name of the Plaintiff at the time of the second and third capital increase.

A. 00,000,000

The sum of the subscription price for new shares paid was KRW 720 million (=the second subscription price of this case)

The acquisition price of new shares for acquisition of 280 million won + 440 million won for the third capital increase of this case

KRW 360,000,000 KRW 360,000,000 (i.e., the second subscription for new shares in question)

The purchase price of new shares was KRW 140 million + KRW 220 million for the third capital increase of new shares in this case).

3) On the other hand, the results of the National Tax Computer Network on 100,000,000 are as follows:

(c)

B. Determination on the legality of the instant disposition

1) Facts premised on the instant disposition

In full view of the Defendant’s arguments, the Defendant’s first capital increase shares at the time of the instant first capital increase

A to borrow KRW 480,000,000 from A to the extent that the Plaintiff borrowed the above amount, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,000

Since each of the above amounts has been paid in 160 million won as the subscription price for the State, each of the above amounts has been discharged from the company.

B. It was reverted to 00,000,000, and the Plaintiff at the time of the second and third capital increase.

720 million won in total of the subscription price for new shares (=20 million won in total of the subscription price for new shares with 20 million won in the instant case)

The amount of KRW 80 million + KRW 440 million for the acquisition of new shares with the third capital increase in this case) and KRW 20 million;

KRW 360,000,000 per total of the subscription price for new shares (=the second subscription price for new shares in this case)

The acquisition price of KRW 140 million + KRW 220 million for the third capital increase with new shares in this case)

paid on behalf of the Company, the amount of KRW 480,000,000,000,000,000,000

As to KRW 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

(i) The remaining 200,000 won (=70,000,000 won)

20 million won - 480 million won was out of the Company to be attributed to A.A., and each of the total subscription price of 200,000,000 won and 360,000,000 won out of the Company;

On the premise that the disposition of this case was reverted to 00, it seems that the disposition of this case was taken.

2) Determination

A) As to the first capital increase with respect to the instant case

All the facts and evidence admitted above are acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the arguments.

The Plaintiff at the time of the first capital increase with respect to the Plaintiff, i.e., the Plaintiff 480 million won at the time of the instant first capital increase.

there is no objective document to acknowledge that the loan was made by the State, and that there is no objective document to acknowledge that the loan was made by the State.

Of KRW 80,000,000, which was raised at the time of capital increase increase, 480,000 won deposited immediately in the account in the name of 20,000,000 of the Plaintiff’s name. Such deposit was made through the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff.

In other words, 000 'A' present as a witness in this Court and 'A' present at the time of the first capital increase

Although testimony was made to the effect that the Plaintiff lent KRW 400 million to the Plaintiff, the relationship between 00 million and the Plaintiff

In full view of the fact that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to believe it as it is in light of the foregoing, the first week of this case

It does not seem that 480 million won, at the time of the beneficiary, was borrowed from the beneficiary.

Therefore, the above KRW 480 million as the plaintiff's asset, which was separated from the company, 200,000;

It can not be said that 10 million won has been reverted to Y0 each.

B) As to the second and third capital increase increase

At the time of the second and third capital increase, KRW 1.8 billion in the deposit account in the name of the plaintiff at the time of the second and third capital increase.

A. A. B. 00,000,000

As seen earlier, the Office’s factual relations as seen earlier, the evidence as seen earlier, and No. 50

Evidence Nos. 51, 52, and B, together with the purport of the whole pleadings, are as follows:

In full view of the circumstances, 18 in the Plaintiff’s deposit account at the time of the second and third capital increase.

The plaintiff's funds were out of the company due to the withdrawal of the cost of detention, and the above KRW 1.8 billion was the new shares of Jung.

Total amount of KRW 720 million, KRW 20 million, KRW 20 million, KRW 00,000, and KRW 300,000,000, respectively.

A. A. B.00,000 won, each of which has been paid as KRW 60 million and has been paid as an officer of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s shareholder

It is reasonable to view that each of the above amounts has been reverted to 00.

① As seen in paragraph (a) above, 400 million won at the time the Plaintiff first issued new shares.

Since 80 million won cannot be deemed to have been borrowed from Jeong-hee, the 2 and 3th capital increase with respect to the instant shares.

The total amount of KRW 480 million out of the total amount of KRW 720,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff at the time

At the time of the first capital increase with respect to the Plaintiff’s first capital increase, it shall be paid as repayment for the Plaintiff’s loans.

The right to receive money from the plaintiff can not be deemed to have been made, and otherwise, the AA shall be entitled to receive money from the plaintiff.

The above KRW 720 million is out of the company and is the representative director, as there is no evidence to prove that there is no evidence to prove that there is such amount.

be deemed to have reverted to the Corporation.

② Total amount of KRW 1.8 billion for subscription price for new shares with the second and third subscription price for new shares in the name of the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff was withdrawn and paid from the Agricultural Bank Account, and the amount of KRW 1.8 billion to the Plaintiff and three others

The cash, cash, and cash at the cash receipt and disbursement book, which have not been accounted for as a tentative payment or loan.

Accounting was made in the way of recording as a common deposit.

③ At the time of the Plaintiff’s offering of new shares with respect to the second and third capital increase, the Plaintiff 20, 200

A total of KRW 360 million for each of 00 million (140 million for subscription to new shares with respect to the second issue of this case)

6.5% per annum on the third subscription price for new shares of this case + 220 million won per annum; and

each loan agreement stating that "to be lent for a period of up to one year" is to be extended;

Although the Commission submitted a statement of commitment to repayment as evidence, the Plaintiff at the time of the Defendant’s tax investigation

In the case of a request by the Tax Tribunal that the Tax Tribunal does not submit data, such as a loan agreement, a certificate of repayment guarantee, etc.

The above documents were submitted to the City, and each of the above loan agreements and the acceptance of repayment guarantee shall be made by a notary public.

document which has not been certified by the court, may not exclude the possibility that the date has been written retroactively.

the income from 200, b00, 2000 to 2011 before the Republic of Korea.

in light of the current status of possession of real estate and the rate of 00, 200, 360,000

about 23.4 million won with interest (=360 million won x 6.5% per annum)

C. The plaintiff 10, 100, 100 up to now since the second and third capital increase in this case

In light of the fact that there is no record of receipt of the above money as interest for the above money, each of the above,

It is difficult to believe the contents of the loan agreement, the letter of commitment to repayment, etc. as it is.

4. 00 A.I.D. 'B00' A.I.D. 'B00' present as a witness in this Court.

testimony to the effect that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 360 million from the Plaintiff at the time of the second and third capital increase increase.

However, in light of the Plaintiff’s relationship with 000, it is difficult to believe it as it is.

5. At the time of the Defendant’s tax investigation on July 2012, paid by the Plaintiff in December 2010

The payment of new shares subscription price for 1.8 billion won to a corporation in connection with the person with the award; and

used in such manner and omitted the disposal of income (or dividend) of the person who has accrued the amount of outflow from the company.

was submitted to the public official belonging to the defendant a written confirmation stating that "a confirmation is confirmed".

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, among the disposition of this case, the acquisition price of new shares with respect to the second and third new shares offering in this case

Disposition of the change in the amount of income which was taken place by deeming that the aggregate of KRW 1.32 billion was out of the company and the amount of KRW 240,000 to be KRW 200,000,000 to be accrued to Australia, each of which was 360,000,000 won; and

lawful and 300 million won in each disposition of notice of change in income amount made on b00,000, and 200

The notification of the change in the amount of income exceeding KRW 60 million is illegal.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and Nass money is accepted.

The claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

0 Housing Construction Corporation

0. Director of Regional Tax Office

2015.04.09

2015.05.21

1. On September 6, 2012, the part of which exceeds KRW 360,00,000, each of the notice of change in income amount of KRW 520,000,00, belonging to the business year 2010, which the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on September 6, 2012, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/4 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

On September 6, 2012, the notice of change in the income amount in attached Form 1 issued by the defendant of the Gu office against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiff was established on August 6, 1998 and established on August 6, 1998 for the purpose of housing construction business, lease housing business, etc. The Plaintiff’s shareholder was from the time of its establishment to the date of its establishment, and the Plaintiff’s shareholder held 40% of the total number of issued stocks, b00, 000, and 20% of the total number of issued stocks, respectively, from the time of its establishment to the date of its establishment. Jeong is the Plaintiff’s representative director, b00 is the Plaintiff’s internal director, and 20% of the total number of issued stocks is the Plaintiff’s auditor. 200 is the Plaintiff’s external director, and b00 is the other spouse’s external relationship. 30 is the spouse’s external relationship.

B. Offering new shares by the Plaintiff

On November 30, 2010, December 16, 2010, and December 28, 2010, the Plaintiff offered shareholder allocation method on three occasions on December 28, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “instant 1, 2, and 3 capital increase order”) and “in the case of the instant 1, 2, and 3 capital increase order” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant 1, 2, and 3 capital increase order”).