Suwon District Court 2012Guhap9643 ( October 30, 2013)

early 201 Heavy 1989 (201.05.03)

It is reasonable that bonus disposal is made for a person who is recognized as having the substance of the investment as a loan unrelated to work.

Although a foreign subsidiary operating a lodging business, it is established that a house is acquired without performing sales activities and is residing in the largest shareholder's family, and it is recognized that the total amount of investment is a loan unrelated to business, and bonus disposal for the person to whom it belongs as a bonus disposal.

2013Nu6888. Revocation of disposition of revocation of notice of change in income amount

AAAA Construction

The superintendent of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap9643 Decided January 30, 2013

June 27, 2013

July 11, 2013

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 notifying the change in income amount of KRW 000,000, which was rendered to the plaintiff on February 1, 201, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this court's ruling are as follows, and they are cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O 4. A. 3. The following shall be added to the evidence of heading 7 through 9.

(4) In light of the above circumstances, the plaintiff added "the fact that the plaintiff collected US$ 00 from September 3, 2010 to March 30, 2012 that the local corporation was liquidated" to "the 11st "not all have been sold", "no data was submitted to conduct a local market survey, etc. for operating a hotel, etc. by accepting the hotel, etc., and the 12th "not being disbursed as corporate funds", and "the 12th "not being disbursed as corporate funds".

O The following shall be added to the "not related" in Part 6, 3:

According to the above evidence, the local subsidiary paid 00 US dollars 00 each month to the Lee Young-young as salary, and it is difficult to see that there was a real lease income from the local subsidiary. In light of this, it is difficult to see that there was a real lease income from the local subsidiary, and there is no evidence to see that the local subsidiary obtained interest income using 00 US$ 1200,000 other than the purchase price of the building in this case out of the investment in this case (In addition, according to the statement in evidence No. 9-1, the plaintiff, from September 3, 2010 to March 30, 2012, it is difficult to see that the local subsidiary collected 00 US dollars 00 out of US$ 00 and liquidated 00 as a result, and in light of this, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff's lease income or interest income as alleged by the plaintiff).

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed due to lack of grounds.