Daejeon District Court 2009Guhap4120 ( October 27, 2010)

early 2009.2830 ( October 16, 2010)

amount received shall not be the return of the investment but be the interest of the non-business loan.

Although the plaintiff asserts that the amount received is the return of investment money, it is reasonable to see that it is personal monetary transaction as interest income of non-business loan, since it is not included in the corporation's account or deposited into the corporation's account. It cannot be viewed that the company bears the responsibility of expression agency for the

2010Nu2638 Disposition of revocation of imposition of income tax

KimA

○ Head of tax office

Daejeon District Court Decision 2009Guhap4120 Decided October 27, 2010

March 17, 2011

April 7, 2011

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 disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 164,206,240 against the plaintiff on March 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s opinion on this case is as follows, and the reasoning for this Court’s opinion is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the Plaintiff added the following judgments as to the newly asserted matters in the court of first instance, and the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff Company” as “foreign company” in Articles 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount invested by the Plaintiff in the non-party company was KRW 56.0 billion, including the amount of KRW 300 million in existing investments, KRW 26.0 million in total, and that the Defendant recognized only the amount of KRW 300 million in existing investments as the Plaintiff’s investment amount (=the amount of KRW 700 million in Korea National Housing Corporation - the amount of KRW 300 million in investment) as the non-business interest, and the instant disposition that the Defendant imposed was unlawful.

1) The Plaintiff concluded each monetary loan agreement with EA on May 31, 2004 and KRW 60 million on August 10, 2004 on behalf of the non-party company, and concluded each monetary loan agreement with KRW 260 million on August 10, 2004. Thus, the above amount of KRW 260 million on behalf of the non-party company should be recognized as the Plaintiff’s investment in the non-party company.

2) Even if thisA had no authority to act on behalf of the non-party company at the time, thisA entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff using a corporate employee certificate issued by the non-party company, and thus, the non-party company is responsible for acting on behalf of the expression under Article 125 of the Civil Act. Thus, the above KRW 260 million should be recognized as the Plaintiff’s investment amount against the non-party company.

B. Determination

1) Whether the power of representation exists

The evidence Nos. 3-2, 5, and 6, and testimony by witnesses of the first instance court is insufficient to recognize the fact that the non-party company granted the Plaintiff and the non-party company the authority to conclude each monetary loan contract with the non-party company on behalf of the non-party company, and on behalf of the non-party company, the non-party company granted to the non-party company the authority to conclude each monetary loan contract with the amount of KRW 60 million on May 31, 2004 and August 10, 2004, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the company

2) Whether an expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Act is established

In full view of Gap evidence 3-2, Gap evidence 5, and 16's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings, Gap evidence 3-2, Gap evidence 5, and 16's testimony, the additional statement of 60 million won as of May 31, 2004 (Ga evidence 3-2) and the additional investment confirmation of 200 million won as of August 10, 2004 (Ga evidence 5) are documents prepared as of the date of its preparation. The loan borrowed letter as of May 31, 2004 is the name and address of the non-party company, and the seal similar to the other non-party corporation's corporate seal is affixed to the non-party company's name and representative directorB's name, and it is difficult to view the non-party company's signature and seal as being attached to the non-party company's signature and seal affixed to the non-party company's loan for consumption on the premise that the non-party company did not have any other reason to recognize that it was a legal person's signature and seal attached to the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.