Cho High Court Decision 201Da1585 (No. 30, 2011)

Although it is alleged that it is a loan loan which is an overseas debt, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Although the representative director of the related company asserts that the funds received through the representative director of the related company should be appropriated as off-the-counter debts, he/she should have paid all the principal or interest at any time over the three to five years from the date of the loan, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

2011Guhap4037 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AA Construction Corporation

Kim Jong-soo

July 5, 2012

September 27, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 000 for the business year of 2007 and corporate tax of KRW 000 for the business year of 2008 and corporate tax of KRW 000 for the business year of 2009 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in building and engineering work, etc.

B. The defendant, on July 2010, conducted a tax offense investigation against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff appropriated 00 won as expenses in 2007 and 2008, and processed 000 won as personnel expenses in 2007 through 2009 (00 won in 2007, 0000 won in 2008, and 000 won in 2009). The plaintiff's income amount was 00 won in 2007, and 000 won in 2008, and 000 won in 2009 for 2009, taking into account these factors, each disposition was imposed (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition").

C. On March 21, 201, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, sought an adjudication to the Tax Tribunal on March 21, 201, and received a decision on September 30, 201 to correct the tax base and tax amount for each business year according to the result of partial reexamination of the Plaintiff’s disbursement details.

D. Accordingly, the defendant made a reinvestigation according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal and reduced 000 won by recognizing the corporate tax for the business year of 2007 as deductible expenses, and 000 won by adding 00 won to deductible expenses, and 000 won by recognizing the corporate tax for the business year of 2008 as deductible expenses, and 000 won by adding 00 won to deductible expenses for the corporate tax for the business year of 2009.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff borrowed 00 won on March 13, 2006, 000 won on December 2006, 2006, and 000 won on September 29, 2009, and 000 won on December 21, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "the money in this case") through the representative director KimB, and the representative director ofCC, which is the plaintiff's subsidiary company, and the sum of 000 won on December 21, 2007, and the above loan shall be counted as additional debt, and 00 won shall be counted as losses.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to the statements in evidence Nos. 2 and 6, the amount in this case was paid to the plaintiff from KimB, and AD, and some of the above amounts were used as operating expenses of the plaintiff company. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to deem the amount in this case as the plaintiff's loan, and there is no other evidence to support this (i) the amount in this case must be agreed between the plaintiff, KimB, and AD, and (ii) the amount in this case should have been paid at least 3 years to 5 years from the borrowing date, and there was no assertion or proof of the above circumstances, and (ii) KimB was the representative director of the plaintiff company, CC's affiliated company, and only 10 billion won of the loan in the name of the plaintiff's affiliated company, and only 10 billion won of the loan in the name of the plaintiff's funds in this case were raised or again provided to the plaintiff, and only 100 billion won of the loan in the name of the plaintiff's affiliated company, and 100 billion won of the loan in this case.

2) Accordingly, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no ground.