Whether the processing purchase amount is legitimate as bonus disposition by the representative director;

Since the processing purchase amount is not leaked out of the company, and it can be recognized that it remains as credit purchase amount on the company's account books, the issue amount should be viewed as being reserved in the company.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 23,919,830 on April 10, 200 against the Plaintiff on April 10, 200 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s representative director is Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “○○○○ Company”) that is located in Seongdong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) received the processed purchase tax invoice of KRW 45 million (hereinafter “instant key amount”) from ○○ Co., Ltd. for the business year 2000 without real transaction and included it in the deductible expenses when filing a return on the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax in 200.

B. After verifying the fact that the non-party company received the processing purchase tax invoice, the head of ○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed that the issue amount of the instant case was leaked out other than the company and thus, was disposed of as a result of the recognition of the plaintiff, who is the representative of the non-party company; and (b) notified the defendant thereof; (c) on April 10, 2006, the defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 23,919,830, global income tax for the plaintiff in 200 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On June 20, 2006, the plaintiff appealed against the defendant on June 20, 2006, but the defendant dismissed the objection on July 13 of the same year. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on October 16, 2006, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 14, 2006.

[In the absence of dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The party's assertion

The plaintiff alleged that the issue amount of this case was a processed purchase, but since it was not true that it was leaked out of the country, the disposition of this case was unlawful, and the defendant asserted that the disposition of this case was just in accordance with the law.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Under the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the recognition contribution system for the representative of income from the disposal of income as stipulated in the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree shall not be based on the fact that such income has accrued to the representative, but it shall be deemed as a bonus to the representative of a conditionless, regardless of its substance, for certain facts which can be recognized as such act in order to prevent an unfair act under tax law by a corporation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu3120, Jul. 14, 1992). If a corporation does not enter its sales in the account book or calculates the cost of the processing in the account book, the corporate income equivalent to the omitted sales or the cost of the processing shall be deemed as leaked outside the company. In this case, special circumstances to deem that the omitted sales amount, etc. is not leaked shall be proved by the assertion thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du3

In this case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the issue amount of this case was not leaked out of private company and reserved in company as argued by the plaintiff, and in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 10, the issue amount of this case can be recognized as having remaining as 19.5 million won (including value added tax) in the accounts of the non-party company from 2000 to 2004, after the closure of the business. Thus, the issue amount of this case shall be deemed to have been reserved in company.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, based on the premise that the issue amount of this case was leaked out of the private company, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted.