Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Guhap-5731 ( November 25, 2016)

It is legitimate that the defendant disposed of as bonus the remainder other than the bad debt disposed of in-house reserve, etc. among the sales revenue of the excursion ship information fee equivalent to the omitted sales amount.

The Defendant’s disposal of all of the issues at issue as bonus to the Plaintiff, the representative of the instant company, is lawful. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions that increased or corrected the amount of the Plaintiff’s wage and salary income from 2007 to 2009, adding the amount of the issues to the Plaintiff’s wage and salary income from 2009 is lawful.

Article 20 of the Income Tax Act

2016Nu81033 Detailed income and revocation of disposition of global income

1. AA;

1. BB director of the tax office;

June 21, 2017

August 16, 2017

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. The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 185,491,540 (including additional tax) for the year 2007, the amount exceeding KRW 30,271,764 of global income tax of KRW 185,491,540 (including additional tax), the imposition of global income tax of KRW 141,608,510 (including additional tax) for the year 2008, and the imposition of global income tax of KRW 44,849,190 for the year 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for supplementing or adding the judgment as follows 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

The Plaintiff asserts to the following purport. Each of the instant dispositions is legitimate, the premise that the Defendant’s omission in sales included in the company’s gross income was leaked out of the company’s company’s private capital, and the omission in sales was merely the amount that the instant company failed to recover from the telecommunications business operator, i.e., the amount that was not recovered, and thus cannot be leaked out of the company. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s omission in sales was leaked out of the company’s private capital, and the Plaintiff’s disposal of the income as the bonus to the Plaintiff, which was the representative director of the instant

However, as recognized in the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, as recognized in the judgment of the first instance court, part of the issues, excluding the portion disposed of by the internal reserve, etc., out of the sales revenue of the excursion ship information usage fee corresponding to the omitted sales, is proved to the extent that the existence of special circumstances, such as that part of the remaining issues, is not leaked out of the unclaimed bonds, and thus, the revenue equivalent to the key issue amount of the company in this case

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the first instance court with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.