Whether a tax liability for earned income tax exists in case where a person who received the tax credit recognized under the Corporate Tax Act returns the amount of his income to a corporation (affirmative)

In determining or revising the corporate tax base, if it is clear that the amount included in the calculation of earnings has been leaked out of the company, and it is deemed as a bonus for the employee who is the person to whom it is attributed, the person to whom it is attributed shall be liable to pay the income tax on the amount of income so disposed. After the occurrence of the tax liability for wage and salary income tax on the disposal of such recognition, it does not affect the tax liability already accrued even if the person to whom it belongs

Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 94-2(1)1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 21(1)1(c) of the Income Tax Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on May 1, 201

Head of Maritime Affairs Office

Busan High Court Decision 87 Gu10 delivered on March 10, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the First and Second Grounds:

According to Article 32 (5) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 94-2 (1) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11813, Dec. 31, 1985; hereinafter the same) and Article 21 (1) 1 (c) of the Income Tax Act, where it is clear that the amount included in the calculation of the corporate tax has been leaked out of the company in determining or revising the corporate tax base, if the person to whom it belongs is an employee (including an officer) is a bonus for the person to whom it is attributed, and the person to whom it is attributed bears the liability to pay the income tax on the amount disposed of in the company. After the tax liability for the income tax on the disposal of the company is established, even if the person to whom it belongs returns the amount to the corporation, it does not affect the already accrued tax liability (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1548, Nov. 8, 198).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation were non-party 0 and the non-party 1 corporation were non-party 1 and the non-party 2 corporation were non-party 1 and the non-party 1 corporation were non-party 1 and the non-party 1 corporation were non-party 1 and the non-party 1 corporation was non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were non-party 1 and the non-party 1 corporation was non-party 1 and the non-party 1 corporation was non-party 1 and the non-party 4 and the non-party 1 corporation was non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was non-party 5 and the non-party 2 was non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was non-party 4 and the non-party 1 corporation was non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was non-party 1 and the non-party 300.

2. On the third ground for appeal

The court below asserted that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the interpretation of Article 94-2 (1) (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and in misunderstanding the legal principles on income. However, as seen in the judgment on the first and second grounds of appeal, it is clear that the actual owner of the withdrawn money of this case was the plaintiff, and the non-party company agreed to take out 280,000,000 won from the bank from the non-party bank to take out the loan from the non-party bank, and the non-party company did not legally agree to take out the total amount of the loan, and there was no evidence to prove that the non-party company transferred the claim of KRW 125,00,000,000 to the plaintiff on behalf of the non-party. Thus, the court below did not properly confirm that the actual owner of the withdrawn money of this case was the non-party, not the plaintiff, and that the non-party company was a non-party company's 28,000,000 won with loans from the non-party bank.

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 Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won