Daegu District Court 2006Guhap2161 (Law No. 19, 2007)

The propriety of the disposition taken by a legal entity as a bonus, whether the provisional payment not recovered by the closure of business is a representative;

A series of acts or processes in which a corporation actually distributes the profits of the corporation to the Plaintiff by practically abandoning the collection of the provisional payment carried over from the electricity even though the special relationship had ceased to exist due to the closure of business, the establishment of an unfair act cannot be denied on the grounds of the tax and accounting nature or form of the provisional payment in this case.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 52 (Dispudiation of Wrongful Calculation)

Enforcement Decree of the former Corporate Tax Act (Scope of Specially Related Persons)

1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange from the trial to the defendants is all dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 79,649,290 against the Plaintiff as of May 6, 2008 shall be revoked. The Defendant Republic of Korea paid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 79,649,290 and the amount calculated by applying a rate of 20% per annum from May 31, 2008 to the date of full payment (the Plaintiff’s revocation of the global income tax and detailed disposition from July 6, 2007 by the first instance court to the Defendant Republic of Korea as of July 6, 2007 by the Plaintiff’s return of unjust enrichment or tort equivalent to the amount of the tax paid by the Plaintiff based on the above disposition. However, at the first instance, the Defendant North Daegu District Tax Office revoked the previous disposition and imposed KRW 79,649,290 on the Plaintiff on May 6, 2008. The Defendant Republic of Korea sought revocation of the new disposition to the North Daegu Tax Office, and sought a new claim for restitution of unjust enrichment or tort against the Plaintiff’s payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the defendant's Republic of Korea shall be revoked. With respect to the defendant's plaintiff 112,941,716 won and money 9,981,640 won, 5% per annum from August 1, 2007 to the delivery date of the correction of the purport of the claim of this case and the supplementary statement of the cause of the claim (the receipt of August 20, 2007) and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

(b) The director of the tax office in North Daegu;

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the director of the tax office in North Daegu is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the director of the tax office in North Daegu is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 5-1, 6-1, 2, 7-1, 8, 9-2, 1, 3-1, 2, 3-1, 5, 18-1, 5, 19-2, and 7-1, 8, 9-2, 1, 3-2, 4 through 10, 12, 13, 14, 17-1, 2, 3, 18-1, 5, 19-1, 2, and 19-2.

A. AA (hereinafter referred to as "A") was established for the purpose of housing construction and sales business, housing rental business, etc. on December 28, 1999, and closed its business on November 31, 200. Around December 18, 2001, it was re-established on December 18, 2001, and subsequently closed its business again on December 31, 2002, and then reported a closure of business on June 20, 2003.

B. The Plaintiff was working as the representative director of AA from the time of the establishment of AA to the end of its closure. The entire shares generated by A was held by the Plaintiff, who is the largest shareholder, 28.31% of the total shares generated by E.S., and E. 25% of E.S., E. 15.63% of E.S., E., E., E.

C. The five shareholders of A including the Plaintiff, etc. borrowed KRW 320,000,000 from the Seo-scam to December 1999, and paid KRW 320,000,000 of the established capital of AA. The Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 300,000 among the established capital of A under the pretext of provisional payment on December 17, 200 and May 18 of that year and December 19 of that year, and paid KRW 320,000,000,000 from the Seo-scam to the establishment capital of AA.

D. On March 31, 200, the New Date reported to the head of the Dong Daegu District Tax Office the tax base of corporate tax and its tax amount for the business year of 1999 (from December 28, 1999 to December 31 of that year) as follows:

①매출액(수입금액):0원,②매출원간:0원,③판매비 및 일반관리비:722,500원,④영업이익(영업손실):-722,500원{0원(매출액) - 0(매출원가) - 722,500원(판매비 및 관리비)},⑤영업외수익:631,426원,⑥영업외비용:0원,⑦경산이익(경산손실): -91,174원{-722,500(영업손실) + 631,426(영업외 수익) - 0원(영업외비용)},⑧당기순이익(당기순손실): -91,174{-91,174(경상손실) - 0원(법인세 등)},⑨과세표준 : -594,420원[-91,174원(당기순손실) - 503,246원{소득조정금액(창업비 손금산입)} - 0워(이월결손금)],⑩산출세액 : 0원(결손금이월: 594,420원)

E. On March 21, 2001, AA reported the tax base of corporate tax and its tax amount for the business year (from January 1, 2000 to December 31 of that year) of 2000 with the following content to the head of the Dong Daegu District Tax Office, and on December 31 of that year, A stated the balance of the provisional payment amount for the Plaintiff at KRW 300,000,000 as of December 31, 200.

①매출액(수입금액):0원,②매출원간:0원,③판매비 및 일반관리비:15,768,236원,④영업이익(영업손실):-15,768,236원{0원(매출액) - 0(매출원가) - 15,768,236원(판매비 및 관리비)},⑤영업외수익:25,581,078원,⑥영업외비용:0원,⑦경산이익(경산손실): 9,812,842원{-15,768,236(영업손실) + 25,581,078(영업외 수익) - 0원(영업외비용)},⑧당기순이익(당기순손실): 8,208,892원{9,812,842원(경상이익) - 1,603,950원원(법인세 등)},⑨과세표준 : 8,208,892원[8,208,892원(당기순이익) +0원{소득조정금액(익금산입)} - 0원(이월결손금)], 단,AA은 이월견손금 594,420원의 공제를 누락하였음],⑩산출세액 :1,313,422원

(f)A on March 30, 2002, reported to the head of the Dong-gu Tax Office the tax base of corporate tax and its amount of tax for the business year (from January 1, 2001 to December 31 of that year) of the same 2001 year (from January 1, 2001 to December 31 of that year), and on December 31, 2001, entered the balance of the provisional payment to the Plaintiff as KRW 271,50,000 (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional payment of this case") as of December 31, 201.

①매출액(수입금액):0원,②매출원간:0원,③판매비 및 일반관리비:31,738,116원,④영업이익(영업손실):-31,738,116원{0원(매출액) - 0(매출원가) - 31,738,116원(판매비 및 관리비)},⑤영업외수익:31,730,455원,⑥영업외비용:0원,⑦경산이익(경산손실): -7,661원{-31,738,116(영업손실) + 31,730,455(영업외 수익) - 0원(영업외비용)},⑧당기순이익(당기순손실): -9,721원{-7,661원(경상손실) - 2,060원원(법인세 등)},⑨과세표준 : -9,721원[-9,721원(당기순이익) + 0원{소득조정금액(익금산입)} - 0원(이월결손금)],⑩산출세액 :0원(결손금이월:9,721원)

(g)A has not reported the tax base and amount of corporate tax for the 2002 business year after the closure of December 31, 2002.

On September 15, 2004, the head of the tax office of the Daegu District Tax Office closed a business on December 31, 2002, and then ordered the plaintiff to recover the provisional payment of this case from the plaintiff, on the ground that the provisional payment of this case was not recovered by the plaintiff, pursuant to Article 4-0.6 (General Provisions of the Corporate Tax Act hereinafter referred to as the "General Provisions") of the National Tax Service, as a bonus to the representative director of AA for the representative director of the National Tax Service, the provisional payment of this case belongs to the plaintiff's income belonging to the year 2002, and then issued a notice of change in the amount of income (hereinafter referred to as the "Initial notice of change in amount of income").

Accordingly, on January 4, 2005, the director of the tax office of North Daegu (hereinafter referred to as the "director of the tax office") imposed the plaintiff's global income tax of KRW 104,105,600 and resident tax of KRW 10,410,560 on the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "first taxation"), and notified the plaintiff of the payment of the above global income tax and resident tax by January 31, 2005.

H. As the Plaintiff did not pay the above global income tax and resident tax by the payment deadline, on March 16, 2005, the Defendant Seo-gu seized the apartment, land, building, etc. owned by the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff of the attachment thereof.

Accordingly, on July 28, 2006, the Plaintiff paid 128,46,180 won in total, including 104,105,60 won in global income tax and 24,360,580 won in addition to 24,360,580 won in global income tax.

I. However, in order to dispose of the income accrued to the plaintiff from the bonus to the representative director of the AA in the course of the first instance trial, it was revealed that there was no resolution on corporate tax including the provisional payment in the calculation of the tax base and its tax amount of the AA's 2002 business year in the calculation of the income accrued to the plaintiff in the year of 2002, despite the fact that there was no resolution on the determination of corporate tax including the provisional payment in the gross income. On May 9, 2007, the head of the Dong Daegu District Tax Office decided to determine the tax base and its tax amount of the AA's corporate tax for the business year of 2002 including the provisional payment in the calculation of the tax base and its tax amount of the AA's 202 business year in the calculation of the tax amount of the A's 202 business year in the calculation of the income accrued to the plaintiff (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

(j) In accordance with the instant disposition of income by the head of the Dong-gu Tax Office, Defendant Seo-gu Tax Office: (a) revoked the initial disposition of income to the Plaintiff on May 21, 2007; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of global income tax of KRW 91,50,789 in 202 as a result of the instant disposition of income; and (c) on May 31 of that year, the Plaintiff paid global income tax of KRW 128,46,180 in total and its additional charges; (d) refunded global income tax of KRW 128,46,180 in total and its additional charges; and (e) imposed global income tax of KRW 90,892,40 in 202, and resident tax of KRW 9,089,240 in total and KRW 99,60 in total on July 31, 2002.

(k) However, it was revealed that there was no evidence that the decision of corporate tax base related to the rectification taxation or the disposition of this case was made to AA or the Plaintiff during the appellate trial of this case. The head of the tax office of the same Daegu issued a notice on April 22, 2008 of the change in the amount of income (hereinafter “the notice of change in amount of income”) to the Plaintiff on the grounds of the tax base and the decision of the amount of corporate tax as of May 9, 2007 and the disposition of this case, as seen in the above paragraph.

Other. According to the notice of the change in the amount of income of this case issued by the head of the Dong Daegu District Tax Office, the head of the defendant Seo-gu District Tax Office revoked the corrective tax disposition on May 6, 2008, and refunded the global income tax of KRW 90,892,400 paid by the Plaintiff according to the corrective tax disposition, and on the same day, imposed the global income tax of KRW 79,649,290 (in addition to the provisional tax payment of this case, the total income of KRW 12,00,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax disposition”).

2. The parties' assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion

(1)A, upon closure of December 31, 2002, did not recover the provisional payment of this case from the Plaintiff even though the special relationship with the Plaintiff was extinguished. From the viewpoint of creative days, this constitutes an unfair act that is denied under the Corporate Tax Act, since the Plaintiff renounced his claim against the Plaintiff on the provisional payment of this case or exempted his obligation, and the Plaintiff’s position obtained the benefit of debt exemption, and constitutes an unfair act that is denied under the Corporate Tax Act. Accordingly, the head of the Dong Daegu District Tax Office issued a disposition of this case with the content that the provisional payment of this case would be attributed to the Plaintiff’s representative director as a bonus to the AA’s representative director in accordance with the General Rule 1(f) of the Corporate Tax Act, and then notified the change in the amount of income of this case to the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s letter issued a disposition of this case that imposes global income tax of 79,649,290 won for the year 202 pursuant to the disposition of this case and the notice of change in the amount of income of this case.

(2) Even if it is assumed that the disposition of this case was unlawful, since the provisional payment of this case waived by AA was leaked to other than the company and it was evident that the plaintiff had been active in the business for the purpose of AA, the said waived money regardless of the disposition of this case constitutes the plaintiff's wage and salary income, and the disposition of this case is legitimate in this regard.

B. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Claim for revocation of the instant taxation disposition against Defendant’s Secretary

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant taxation disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.

(A) According to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree thereof, where it is clear that the amount included in the calculation standard of corporate tax has been released from the company in determining the corporate tax base, the amount included in the calculation standard shall be the dividend, the bonus, other income, and other outflow from the company according to the person to whom it belongs, and where it is unclear, the amount included in the calculation basis of corporate tax for the pertinent business year shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative. Thus, in determining the corporate tax base for the pertinent business year, the amount included in the calculation of income may be deemed to have been disposed of only the amount included in the calculation of earnings. However, Article 15 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the provisional payment in this case shall be deemed to have withdrawn the capital of the AA, and the capital shall not be included in the calculation of income for the pertinent business year (201 business year). Thus, in determining the corporate tax base for the 2002 business year of the 2002 business year.

(B) In accordance with Article 52(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, the head of the Dong Daegu District Tax Office denied the effect of the waiver of the claim or exemption of the obligation with respect to the instant provisional payment against the Plaintiff as “unfairly reducing the tax burden, such as corporate tax on creative day,” and added the amount equivalent to the amount to the AA’s gross income for 2002 business year, and notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of the instant income.

Article 52 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that when a corporation unfairly reduces the tax burden on its income due to transactions with a specially related person, the tax authority denies the validity of the corporation's act or income amount from the viewpoint of the tax law and thereby calculates the corporation's income amount for the pertinent business year to maintain fairness in tax avoidance and fair tax burden by calculating the income amount for the pertinent business year of the corporation. AA does not have any act subject to the denial of unfair act because there is no difference between the waiver of claims or exemption from obligations with respect to the provisional payment of this case and there is no act subject to the denial of liabilities, even if there is any fact, since there is no business performance and income after the establishment, it cannot be said that the exemption of the above obligation has reduced unfairly due to the lack of business performance and income. Therefore, in determining the corporate tax base for the 2002 business year of AA, the head of the Dong-gu Tax Office denied the tax burden of AA on the provisional payment of this case on the premise that it exempted the Plaintiff's obligation, such as corporate tax exemption of this case, and added the income amount of this case to the Plaintiff.

(c)The Head of the Daegu Tax Office did not determine the corporate tax base for the 2002 business year for AA, and did not dispose of the income with the content that the provisional payment in this case reverts to the income attributed to the year 2002 of AA. Therefore, the tax office's notification of the change in the income amount in this case, the initial tax assessment, the correction made by the president of the defendant, and the pertinent taxation in this case shall be null and void a year.

(D) Even in accordance with the general rules, the Plaintiff’s business closure was discontinued and does not have been dissolved. Thus, the Plaintiff’s representative director or largest shareholder is still deemed to continue to be related to the AA. Thus, the Plaintiff’s disposal of income cannot be conducted with the purport that the Plaintiff’s temporary payment itself reverts to the Plaintiff’s income attributed to the representative director of the AA in 2002, as a bonus for the principal director of the AA, who failed to recover the interest accrued from the date one year has passed since the end of the business year in which the date of occurrence falls.

(e)The Head of Dong-gu Tax Office did not serve the Plaintiff the notice of the initial change in the amount of income, as well as the determination of the amount of corporate tax against AA and did not impose the disposition. Accordingly, the instant taxation disposition on the premise of this is null and void as the grounds for taxation do not exist.

(f)There is no notification to AA of the determination or correction of the corporate tax base for the 2002 business year to the head of the Daegu District Tax Office, and the determination or correction of the corporate tax is null and void, and the determination or correction of the corporate tax is based on the premise that there is no notification of the change in the income amount of the same Daegu Tax Office and the taxation disposition

(G) The business year of the corporate tax on the instant provisional payment is 2001, and even if 2002 is 202 as alleged by the president of the New Year’s Office, the period of exclusion was imposed as of March 31, 2003, and thus, the period of exclusion was exceeded. Since the decision of the head of the Dong Daegu District Tax Office rendered to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2008, the decision of the correction of the corporate tax imposed on the Plaintiff by the head of the Dong Daegu District Tax Office was later on June 30, 2008, the instant

(2) Demand for monetary payment to Defendant Republic of Korea

The disposition of this case by Defendant Seocho’s Head must be revoked as a disposition of invalidity per annum. However, the Plaintiff paid KRW 79,649,290-7 of global income tax on May 30, 2008 based on the instant disposition of this case. As such, the Plaintiff seek for the payment of KRW 79,649,290 of the amount paid by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Republic of Korea as a claim for damages due to unjust enrichment or tort, and its delay damages.

3. Whether the instant taxation disposition issued by the Defendant’s book was legitimate

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

Article 52 (Dispudiation of Wrongful Calculation)

Enforcement Decree of the former Corporate Tax Act (Scope of Specially Related Persons)

Article 67 (Disposition of Income)

Article 88 (Calculation Type, etc. of Wrongful Acts)

(b) Whether the calculation of wrongful acts is denied;

(1) Relevant regulations and requirements for wrongful calculation

(A) Article 52(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "Where the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the head of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment deems that a domestic corporation's act or the calculation of its income amount has unjustly reduced the tax burden on the corporation's income due to transactions with a person with a special relationship as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, he may calculate the corporation's income amount for each business year regardless of the act or calculation of its income amount (hereinafter "Calculation by wrongful calculation"), and Article 67(Disposition) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the corporate tax base on the corporation's income for each business year pursuant to the provisions of Article 60(Disposition by Wrongful Calculation)" shall be sentenced to the corporate tax base on the income for each business year pursuant to the provisions of Article 66(Disposition) or the corporate tax base

In addition, the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17826 of Dec. 30, 2002 and enforced January 1, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") provides that "a person who has a special relationship as prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 87 (1) 2 Item 3 of the "Act" means a corporation, a shareholder, etc. (excluding a minority shareholder), a relative (excluding a minority shareholder), or a person who has a special relationship with an officer, employee, etc. of a corporation (Article 2)" (Article 3).

(B) According to the above provisions of the Corporate Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree, in order to establish a wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act, it must meet the requirements such as ① a transaction with a corporation and a person with a special relationship, ② an improper act or calculation of income amount of a corporation, ③ such calculation should reduce the tax burden on corporate income.

(C) According to the facts found in the above disposition circumstances, the plaintiff is the representative director of A and the largest shareholder holding 28.13% of the shares generated therefrom, and is in a special relationship with A. Thus, the following is examined: (1) whether A is "unfair act or calculation of income amount corresponding to wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act" under the Corporate Tax Act, and (2) whether such improper act or calculation of income amount has reduced the tax burden on the corporation income generated from the original date.

(2) Whether a wrongful calculation exists

주식회사가 장부상 특수관계자에 대하여'가지급금'으로 계상하여 둔 것은 그 특수관계자로부터 그 가지급금을 회수할 것이 전제된 것이므로, 만일 주식회사가 특수관계자로부터 그 가지급금을 회수하지 않는 것으로 인하여 사실상 회수를 포기하거나 회수가 불가능한 상황으로 놓이게 한다면, 이는 법인세법상 '부당행위계산 부인'의 대상이 되는 '부당행위'의 한 행위유형으로서 법인세법 시행령 제 88조 제1항 제9호 소정의 기타 제1호 내지 제8호에 준하는 행위 또는 계산 및 그 외에 법인의 이익을 분여하였다고 인정되는 경우에 해당하고{부당행위에는 적극적인 작위행위뿐만 아니라 출자자 등에 금전을 대여하고 그 이자수익을 포기하는 것과 같이 발생한 권리를 포기하는 소극적인 부작위행위도 포함한다(대법원 1989.1.17. 선고87누901 판결 참조)}, 그 가지급금은 결국 사외로 유출되어 특수관계자에게 확정적으로 귀속된 것으로 평가함이 상당하다. 이 사건에 돌아와 살피 건데, 앞서 든 증거들에 의하면, AA은 폐업 이후에는 더 이상 목적 사업을 영위한 바 없이 법인세나 부가가치세를 신고하거나 납부하지 아니한 채 해산 및 청산절차를 밟지 않고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실과 같이, AA이 폐업하여 아무런 사업을 영위하지 아니하고 해산 및 청산절차를 밟지 않으면서 이 사건 가지급금을 회수 하지 않고 있다면, AA은 폐업 당시 이미 사실상 청산되었고, 따라서 그 때에 AA과 원고 사이의 특수관계도 함께 소멸되었다고 할 것이며, 그림에도 당시는 물론 현재까지 AA이 원고로부터 이 사건 가지급금을 회수하지 않고 있는 이상, 이는 AA이 사실상 이 사건 가지급금의 회수를 포기하였거나 회수가 불가능한 상황으로 놓이게 하였다고 할 것이므로, 결국 이러한 AA의 가지급금 회수의 포기 등은 법인세법상 부당행위계산 부인의 대상이 되는 '부당행위'라 할 것이고, 이 사건 가지급금은 사외로 유출 되어 특수관계자인 원고에게 확정적으로 귀속되었다고 봄이 상당하므로, 법인의 관할 과세관청인 동대구세무서장은 법인세법 제52조에 따라 위 행위를 부당행위로서 부인하고, 제67조 규정에 따라 소득처분을 할 수 있다{기본통칙은, 제1항 제1호에서 "특수관계자와의 자금거래에서 발생한 가지급금 등과 동 이자상당액이 '특수관계가 소멸할 때까지 회수되지 아니한 가지급금 등과 미수이자'에 해당하는 경우에는 이를 법인세법 시행령 제106조의 규정에 의하여 처분한 것으로 본다. 다만, 회수하지 아니한 정당한 사유가 있거나 회수할 것이 객관적으로 입증되는 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다." 고, 제2항 제1호에서 "제1항의 규정의 의한 가지급금 등은 특수관계가 소멸하는 날이 속하는 사업연도에 처분한 것으로 본다."고 각 규정하고 있는바, 국세청의 기본통칙이 과세관청 내부에 있어서 세법의 해석기준 및 집행기준을 시달한 것으로서 행정청 내부를 규율하는 행정규칙에 불과할 뿐 법원이나 국민을 기혹하는 효력이 있는 법규가 아니므로, 기본통칙 그 자체가 과세처분의 적법한 근거가 될 수 없음은 조세법률주의의 원칙상 당연하다 할 것이나(대법원 2007.2.8. 선고 2005도 5611 판결, 대법원 2004.10.15. 선고 2003도 7064 판결, 대법원 1995.5.23. 선고 94누9283 판결, 대법원 1992.12.22. 선고 92노7580 판결 등 참조), 사외 유출된 가지급금 등의 처리에 관한 세부적인 기준을 정하고 있는 기본통칙은 앞서 본 법리에 터잡아 구 법인세법 시행령 106조의 규정을 구체화한 것에 불과하므로, 법원으로서는 기본통칙에 구속되지는 않으나, 부당행위계산 해당 여부를 판단함에 있어 기본통칙의 관련 규정을 그 기준의 하나로 적절히 참고 할 수 있다. 따라서 기본통칙의 법규성에 따라 부당행위계산의 존부 내지 이 사건 과세처분의 적법 여부가 좌우 되는 것은 아니다}.

The plaintiff asserts that the disposal of income under the Corporate Tax Act can be limited to the amount included in the calculation of earnings. The provisional payment of this case was withdrawn capital which cannot be included in the calculation of earnings, and even if not, it is merely a provisional payment carried over from the former, and it is not an amount to be included in the calculation of earnings for the pertinent business year. Thus, the method of recovering invested capital by the shareholders of a stock company is the company to receive the disposal of shares through the reduction of capital (Article 439 of the Commercial Act), the method of receiving the disposal of shares by profits (Article 343 of the Commercial Act), and the method of transferring residual assets upon the completion of liquidation procedures (Article 538 of the Commercial Act) and the method of transferring equity to other shareholders or third parties, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the provisional payment of this case was withdrawal of capital in the field of capital, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above provisional payment of this case is an unlawful act or an unlawful act that can not be included in the calculation of earnings for the pertinent business year, but it cannot be deemed that it is an unlawful act or an unlawful act of tax payment of this case.

The plaintiff argues that the tax assessment disposition of this case by the head of the Dong Daegu District Tax Office is null and void because he only decided the tax base and amount of corporate tax of the AA and did not impose the tax, and therefore, the tax assessment disposition of this case by the head of the defendant Seo-gu Tax Office based on this premise does not exist, and thus, the tax assessment of the corporation and the disposition of global income tax on the person who was the representative director of the corporation differs from each other. Therefore, the defendant Seo-gu Tax Office's disposition of corporate tax of the AA is subject to the imposition of corporate tax of the AA of the

The plaintiff argues that there is no notification of the determination or correction of the corporate tax base for the business year 2002 by the head of the same Daegu District Tax Office on the original date of the corporation concerned, and that there is no determination or correction of the corporate tax amount, and that the notification of the change in the income amount and the notification of the change in the income amount in this case, which is premised on this is also a free tax disposition. In order for the tax disposition in this case to be effective, the plaintiff should be given the notification of the change in the income amount. However, in addition, the determination or correction of the corporate tax base is irrelevant to the validity of the tax disposition in this case, which is the disposition of global income tax against the individual. In full view of the purport of the statement in Eul evidence 17, it can be acknowledged that the head of the same Daegu District Tax Office lawfully delivered the "written notification of the change in income amount" to the plaintiff, which belongs to the income amount in this case, the notification of the change in income amount in this case was lawfully delivered. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

(iii)whether corporate income taxes are reduced or not;

In the denial of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act, the reduction of corporate tax burden on corporate income in the business year concerned due to the improper act, as well as the reduction of corporate tax burden on corporate income in the business year concerned, and if it is maintained without being denied by wrongful calculation, it also includes the reduction of corporate tax burden if it is maintained without being denied by wrongful calculation.

First, as seen in the circumstances of the above disposition, AA renounced the collection of the provisional payment of this case from the plaintiff in the business year 2002. As such, AA could not recover interest on the provisional payment of this case, which is subject to the calculation of income amount, from the business year 2002 to the business year including the collection of the provisional payment of this case. This result leads to the reduction of corporate tax burden on this part (The act of A paid the provisional payment of this case to the plaintiff, who is the representative director of the corporation, and not receiving the interest from the plaintiff, constitutes an unfair and unfair calculation under the Corporate Tax Act, and thus, A could dispose of income, which is the bonus to the representative director of the corporation, belonging to the income belonging to the plaintiff in the business year 202. However, in this case, since the change of income amount of the provisional payment of this case, which is prior procedure, was omitted, and thus, A could not collect the income tax of this case to the plaintiff as an individual waiver of the income tax of this case.

Then, although the waiver of the provisional payment of this case does not explicitly carry out accounting as deficits, it is difficult to view that AA did not report the tax base of corporate tax for the business year 2002, which is the business year concerned and its tax amount in light of the facts acknowledged in the previous disposition, and there is no business performance and income in the previous year, so it is difficult to view that AA actually reduced the tax burden, such as corporate tax, for the business year concerned. However, if AA runs a normal business through re-operating, it is highly possible to deduct the portion of the provisional payment of this case, which is substantially written off in calculating the amount of income for the purpose of calculating the amount of income, from profits, and such result leads to the reduction of corporate tax burden on that portion.

Therefore, if the above-mentioned unfair act is not denied and is maintained as it is, first of all, the corporate tax burden on the person who failed to receive the provisional payment of this case is actually reduced in the business year 2002, which is the business year concerned, or will be reduced in the business year thereafter, and it is reasonable to view that the corporate tax burden on the provisional payment of this case itself will also be reduced in the business year

(iv)In the case of a suit;

Therefore, even though AA’s special relationship with the Plaintiff was extinguished as of December 31, 2002, the head of the Dong Daegu District Tax Office denied the act of not collecting the provisional payment from the Plaintiff by deeming it as an unfair act under Article 52(1) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 88(1)9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and notified the instant disposition of income and the change in the amount of income in accordance with the relevant procedures is lawful, and therefore, the instant disposition of this case by Defendant Seo-gu Tax Office based on such premise is legitimate as a disposition in accordance with relevant statutes

(c) Whether the exclusion period for the imposition of corporate tax has expired;

According to Article 26-2 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return within the statutory due date of return, national taxes may be imposed for seven years from the date on which the relevant national tax may be imposed. As seen earlier, the business year of corporate tax on the provisional payment of this case is 2002 women, and AA did not file a tax base return by March 31, 2003, which is the statutory due date of return. Thus, the exclusion period of corporate tax assessment on AA is seven years from April 1, 2003, where corporate tax may be imposed on AA. However, even upon the Plaintiff’s assertion, the decision of correction of corporate tax issued by the head of the same Daegu District Office was made on June 30, 2008, which is the exclusion period of imposition. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Appropriateness of the demand for payment of money to Defendant Republic of Korea;

A. Whether the lawsuit is lawful

Defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Defendant Republic of Korea”) has the capacity to make the instant taxation disposition as an administrative act, and thus, it remains effective unless the instant taxation disposition is revoked by a separate administrative litigation procedure. However, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant Republic of Korea, claiming damages against Defendant Republic of Korea on the premise that the instant taxation disposition is null and void, against which the Plaintiff filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of tax payable, or damages arising from tort, is dismissed as it is unlawful and unlawful

However, if the instant taxation disposition is null and void due to significant and obvious defects as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s legal principle as to the validity of the administrative act, which states that the Plaintiff may immediately file a lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the relevant tax amount or damages arising from illegal acts without revocation of the instant taxation disposition, is natural in light of the legal principle as to the validity of the administrative act. Furthermore, such a lawsuit is related to the civil legal relationship derived from administrative legal relations, which is derived from administrative legal relations, and is accordingly deemed to constitute civil litigation pursuant to Article 10(2) and (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, which is what constitutes civil litigation, can be combined with the litigation related to the pertinent disposition, such as damages related to the pertinent disposition

In the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant taxation disposition with respect to the Defendant’s book, and simultaneously filed a lawsuit claiming for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the tax amount paid by the instant taxation disposition or damages arising from tort on the ground that the instant taxation disposition is null and void, due to significant and apparent defects, pursuant to Article 10(2) and (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant Republic of Korea is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s prior defense against the Defendant’s Republic of Korea is not acceptable.

B. Judgment on the merits

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the instant taxation disposition by Defendant Book is lawful. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Republic of Korea on the premise that the instant taxation disposition is unlawful disposition that should be invalidated or revoked on the basis of the grave and apparent home of the instant taxation disposition, is without merit.

5. Consultations

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants that was changed in exchange in the trial is without merit. Thus, all of the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.