Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap10317 ( November 16, 2011)

early 2010west2950 ( December 29, 2010)

For a set-off to be lawful and effective, the existence of a set-off claim and the declaration of intent of set-off shall meet the requirements of set-off.

For a set-off to be lawful and effective, the existence of a set-off claim and the declaration of intent of set-off shall meet the requirements for set-off. However, it is difficult to deem that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was either a claim against the non-party company or the non-party company actually expressed its intention

2011Nu42194 Revocation of the imposition of global income tax

Park ○

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap10317 decided November 16, 2011

May 7, 2013

6. 21 June 201

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 June 1, 2010, the Defendant revoked each imposition of global income tax of 261, 229, 550, global income tax of 2005, global income tax of 540, 148, 140, and global income tax of 271, 143,000 for 208.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's decision in addition to the second instance court's decision, and it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

In the first instance judgment No. 5, No. 16, and No. 17 of the first instance court's decision, "in short, it is insufficient to see that there was a claim for provisional payment, or that the non-party company had declared its intention of offset by the actual system", it shall be deemed that there was a claim for provisional payment.

In addition, the 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

In addition, there is a strong doubt as to whether the Plaintiff actually existed a claim for temporary payments, since the Plaintiff did not accurately disclose the specific amount of the money received from the customer, and the data submitted by the Plaintiff, which was only a certain amount of sales, and the amount actually collected or omitted from the sales, was not confirmed. Furthermore, in the trial, the Plaintiff asserts that “the Plaintiff loaned the money to the non-party company for the period in which the price for the goods is recovered, because it is a structure in which the Plaintiff first pays the price for the goods, and then the employees receive the price for the goods from the wife, then the Plaintiff borrowed the money for the goods to the non-party company for the period in which the price for the goods is recovered, and whether the entire amount of the money paid by the Plaintiff to the non-party company for the goods was accounts as the amount collected from the customer, and if the balance of the money deposited to the corporate account of the non-party company is inconsistent with the balance of the passbook and the cash balance on the account book, it is unclear whether the amount of the account was insufficient.

In the 6th judgment of the court of first instance, the "corporate bank" in the 18th sentence is regarded as the "foreign exchange bank".

In addition, the first instance court's 7th sentence and 11th sentence are as follows.

e) The Plaintiff submitted the evidence of the existence and amount of the instant provisional deposit claims as Gap evidence No. 14 (the Director of 1 Medical Fee Account), Gap evidence No. 15 (Detailed Statement of Enterprise Free Deposit Transactions), Gap evidence No. 21 (Evidence No. 27), Gap evidence No. 28 (Evidence No. 29), and Gap evidence No. 29 (Evidence of Deposit Transactions). However, the Plaintiff’s testimony and evidence No. 14 (Evidence No. 14) alleged to have taken place until January 1, 2003, and evidence No. 200 (Evidence No. 14) were hard to believe, and there was no other evidence to prove that the above provisional deposit occurred between 203 and 204, and the non-party company’s statement that there was no more amount of cash deposit than the amount of cash deposit in the account no more than the amount claimed by the Plaintiff since 2003.

F) Meanwhile, according to the average principle of lending and borrowing, the basic principles of accounting, the sum of the company's assets, liabilities and capital should be the same amount. The balance sheet of the non-party company should be the same.

According to the above, since the total amount of debts and capital is equal to the total amount of assets, and the existence of provisional payments against the non-party company was reduced on the balance sheet. However, since the debt amount of provisional payments is naturally stated on the balance sheet representing the balance sheet, it is natural that the same amount is stated on the next side, and assets such as bonds, etc. are stated on the balance sheet, so in order to prove the existence of provisional payments on the balance sheet, it is necessary to prove that the representative director of the non-party company, the cash amount corresponding to the provisional payments account, and the bonds are actually in existence. However, the customer director, the fixed assets management ledger, and the cash receipt and payment ledger, etc. submitted by the plaintiff as evidentiary materials of provisional payments claims are documents that can be prepared at will by the plaintiff or the non-party company, and there is no objective evidence on them, as seen earlier, it is not possible to accept the plaintiff's allegation that provisional payments or semi-annual transactions were actually made on the account ledger of the non-party company and the plaintiff's financial statements were presented on the account of the non-party company.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of each disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices.