The vice president of a company shall sell the factory site voluntarily, partially embezzled the proceeds thereof, and whether it belongs to the transfer income company.

If it is recognized that the vice president of the Plaintiff Company, on behalf of the Plaintiff Company, applied for the approval of land transfer at Daejeon, after obtaining the approval, transferred the land transfer to the Nonparty Company and received the price, the above Nonparty’s application for the approval of transfer of the land of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff Company and the sales contract and the receipt of the price therefor between the above Nonparty Company and the above Nonparty Company shall be deemed to have impact on the Plaintiff Company, and the income from the transfer of the land shall be deemed to have accrued to the Plaintiff Company. The above Nonparty forged the document in the conclusion of the sales contract and embezzled part of the purchase price, and the conclusion is not different.

Articles 8 and 9 of the Corporate Tax Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Daejeon Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu37 delivered on December 7, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party, who was the vice president of the plaintiff company, applied for the approval of land transfer on behalf of the plaintiff company at Daejeon, and obtained the approval, and transferred the land to the non-party Seocheon Steel Co., Ltd. and received the price. Thus, in light of the records, the court below was just in examining the process of cooking evidence which was conducted in recognizing the above facts, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence. If the facts are as above, the application for the approval of transfer of the land of this case on behalf of the non-party company and the validity of the contract for sale and the receipt of the price between the non-party company and the non-party company, shall be deemed to have been attributed to the plaintiff company. The revenue from the transfer of the land shall be deemed to have been attributed to the plaintiff company. The non-party

In the same purport, the court below is just to determine that the income from the transfer of the above land belongs to the plaintiff company, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of substantial taxation, contrary to the reasons as

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)