logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.10.22 2015구합101992
소득금액변동통지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff paid KRW 907,918,540 in total, as the educational foundation operating A (hereinafter “instant school”), to B, the former president of the Plaintiff during the business year from 2008 to 2012 (hereinafter “former president”).

(hereinafter “instant issues amount”). B.

The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology conducted an audit of the accounting portion of the instant school between December 5, 2011 and December 16, 2011 (hereinafter “instant audit”). As a result, the Ministry discovered that the instant issue amount was unfairly paid to the former president, and ordered the Plaintiff to recover the instant issue amount from the former president to take measures for revenue in the corporate accounting when notifying the instant audit on March 13, 2012.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff collected the instant amount from the former president five times from April 9, 2012 to May 10, 2012, as shown in attached Table 4, and accounted for the account by appropriating it as miscellaneous income at the time of filing a corporate tax return for the business year from March 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013.

C. Meanwhile, on May 10, 2014, according to Article 106(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24357, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act”), the Defendant issued a notice of changes in the amount of bonus for the year between 2008 and 2011 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff as stated in attached Table 1.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 4, 2014, but was dismissed on March 2, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there exists no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant disposition is unlawful in the following sense.

arrow