The scope to be seen as outflow from the company among the omitted amount of sales of a corporation not entered in the register and the burden of proof of such outflow.

Where a corporation fails to enter its sales in the account book despite the fact of sales, the full amount of the omitted sales, including the cost of purchase of the product, shall be deemed to have been leaked, except in extenuating circumstances, and in such cases, the special circumstance that the omitted sales are not leaked, shall be proved by the corporation's side that claims the omitted sales.

Article 32 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 94-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu471 Decided June 14, 1983, 83Nu381 Decided February 28, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu556 Decided September 9, 1986

Undried Development Corporation

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu990 delivered on November 18, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where a corporation does not enter its sales in its account book despite the fact of sales, it shall be deemed that the total amount omitted from sales, including the cost of purchase of goods, etc., was leaked to a private company, unless there are special circumstances. (See Supreme Court Decision 82Nu471 delivered on June 14, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu381 delivered on February 28, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu556 delivered on September 9, 1986, etc.). In this case, the special circumstance that the omission in sales is not leaked to a private company should be proved by the legal entity asserting it. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the evidence consistent with the plaintiff's proposal that the purchase was not made directly by the purchaser or through the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was not made with the funds of the plaintiff corporation, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to bonus or omission in sales, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to bonus or omission in sales.

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.

Justices Park Jong-dong, (Presiding Justice) The replacement of a judge of the Supreme Court cannot be signed and sealed due to retirement.