(a) Whether the business activity performed by the representative director indicating the name of the company during the period of suspension of business is deemed to be the business activity of the company;

(b) Whether the total amount omitted from sale is disposed of as bonus for the representative director; and

A. Even during the period in which a business suspension report was filed by the company, if the representative director of the company purchased and sold goods without any transaction data, such as tax invoice, by indicating the name of the company to the other party to the transaction, it is reasonable to view it as business

(b) Where a corporation omits sales without entering its sales in the account book despite the fact of sales, the full amount of the omitted sales, including the cost, shall be deemed leaked, and disposed of as a bonus to the representative director, unless there are other circumstances.

(a) Article 3(b) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu381 delivered on February 28, 1984, and 83Nu17 delivered on September 24, 1985

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu684 delivered on August 23, 1985

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

With respect to the First Ground:

Even during the period of a business suspension report, if the representative director of the company sells goods without transaction data, such as tax invoice, by indicating the name of the company to the party to the transaction, it is reasonable to view it as business activity of the company, unless there are special circumstances.

According to the evidence in the judgment of the court below, even though the non-party 1's representative director reported the suspension of business on June 30, 1982, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased synthetic resin from the non-party 1 in the name of the above company and sold it again without data and did not keep the details of the transaction in the company's account book after the non-party 1 had reported the suspension of business from November 4, 1982. Thus, the court below is just in holding that the amount equivalent to the sales proceeds of the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's

With respect to the second ground:

In a case where a corporation fails to enter its sales in the account book despite the fact of sales, and a corporation fails to enter its sales in the account book, the total amount of the omitted sales, including the cost, shall be deemed leaked to the representative director, and shall be disposed of as a bonus from the representative director, barring any other circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu17, Sept. 4, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu318, Feb. 28, 1984; etc.). Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the disposition of this case, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

According to the evidence in the judgment below, the plaintiff transferred the management right to the non-party 2 with all the shares of the above company on November 4, 1982 and resigned from the office of representative director, and thereafter, it can be recognized that the plaintiff lent only the name of the above company to the non-party 2 without any relation with the above company and operated personal business activities until the end of the above company. Thus, if such facts are met, the amount equivalent to the sales price after the resignation of the representative director of the above company cannot be deemed as an omission in sales of the above company, so the defendant's disposition of this case by disposing of this part as a bonus

Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant's taxation disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the amount equivalent to the sales price after the resignation of the above representative director was omitted in sales of the above company and that it was after the resignation of the representative director of the above company was not appropriate at the time of the conclusion, but the defendant's revocation of the tax disposition against the above representative director was legitimate in its conclusion, and thus,

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)