If there is an extra debt not appropriated in the account book, it shall be included in the calculation of earnings at the same time.

Where a corporation finds liabilities not appropriated in the account book, it shall include the amount equivalent to the foreign liabilities in the calculation of earnings and dispose of the income of the person to whom it reverts, but at the same time, it shall not affect the profits or losses of the corporation and shall make a reservation

2012Guhap2818 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax, etc.

AAA, Inc.

The director of the tax office.

August 23, 2013

October 11, 2013

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2010, exceeding the OOO members, shall be revoked.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

Paragraph (1) above and the defendant revoke the notice of change in the amount of income of the bonus disposal OOOOO in 2006, the bonus disposal OOOOOOOOO in 207, the exceeding OOOOO won in the notice of change in the amount of income of the bonus disposal OOOOOOO in 208, and the notice of change in the amount of income of the bonus disposal OOOOO in 208.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates a private teaching institute, etc. in OO-dong O-dong O-dong 52-3.

B. From March 15, 2010 to May 3, 2010, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office determined that "the plaintiff omitted sales, and the representative director BB voluntarily used the plaintiff's funds," and notified the defendant of the data for taxation. On June 1, 2010, the defendant notified the plaintiff of the correction and notification of the corporate tax for 2006, OOO, OOOO, 207, 2007, OOOOO, 208, 2006, 2006, OOOO, 206, 2007, and 2008, hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for 2006").

C. On August 12, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal. However, the said claim was dismissed on October 25, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, 11 (including each number, h. the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) From April 26, 2006 to October 26, 2006, the Plaintiff temporarily used OOOE (hereinafter “the instant one”) to B, but collected OOE from B on July 11, 2007, it cannot be deemed that B voluntarily used the instant one. Therefore, the instant one must be excluded from the subject of inclusion in the calculation of earnings and bonus disposition.

2) Even if the B voluntarily used the instant 1 money, this does not result in a change in the Plaintiff’s net assets, so if the instant 1 money is included in the calculation of earnings, such amount shall be included in the calculation of losses.

3) Of the interest paid by the Plaintiff to a national bank and a corporate bank, the part pertaining to the loan of the instant one of the interest paid by the Plaintiff to the national bank and the corporate bank (hereinafter “interest paid”) belongs not to BB but to the national bank and the corporate bank, and the Defendant’s disposal of the instant one as bonus by disposing of the instant one, and thus, the interest paid in this case should be excluded from the bonus disposal subject to the bonus disposal.

4) On July 13, 2007, and July 18, 2007, the Plaintiff used OOOOB as a lump time, but recovered OOOB from OB on July 30, 207, it cannot be deemed that B voluntarily used the instant 2 money. Accordingly, the instant 2 money must be excluded from the bonus disposition.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) On April 24, 2006, the Plaintiff received a loan from a national bank, and transferred an OOOO on April 26, 2006 to thisB. On May 4, 2006, the Plaintiff received a loan from a corporate bank to an OOOO on May 10, 2006, and remitted it to thisB on May 15, 2006, OOO, 16 May 16, 2006, OOOO, and OOOO on October 26, 2006. The Plaintiff did not perform any accounting as to this.

2) On July 12, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted OOO-dong OO-dong O-dong 52-3 and 1 other parcels of land and buildings on the ground of ownership transfer to OOO-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong OO-dong O-dong O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O was returned to O-B on July 13, 2007.

3) This B transferred the money to the Plaintiff on July 11, 2007, and OOOO on July 30, 2007, and the Plaintiff accounted for the said money as a tentative deposit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 7 through 10, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Judgment on the first argument

Even if a juristic person, by appropriating the money to be collected from the representative director in the provisional deposit account, accounts have been made by entering the other party cash, once the juristic person entered in the provisional deposit account, if the contents of the provisional deposit account were to be entered in short-term loan transactions from the representative director, and it is found that such transactions are obligations to be counter-contributed to the representative director, the provisional deposit transactions do not entail any increase in the net assets of the juristic person and are irrelevant to the profits or expenses of the juristic person. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as where the provisional deposit obligations are not scheduled to be counter-contributed, the amount to be collected from the representative director shall be deemed to have already been leaked out, and thus, be deemed to have been reverted to the representative director, who is the other party to the above provisional deposit transactions (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du3726, Jan. 11, 2002).

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the Plaintiff did not keep any accounting for the transfer of the instant one to B from April 26, 2006 to October 26, 2006; ② the Plaintiff received OB transfer of the instant one from 2000 won on July 11, 2007; ③ the amount of the instant one transferred by the Plaintiff to 2000 won (OB) is different from the amount of the instant one transferred by 200 won (OB) and the amount of the money transferred by 100 won (OB), and ④ the Plaintiff did not have any intention to receive KRW 180 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 70 from 70,000,000 from 7,000 to 7,000,000 won, and there was no intention to receive KRW 28,000,000 from 7,000,000 won.

(ii) Judgment on the second argument;

The plaintiff asserts that even if B voluntarily used the money of this case 1, it does not increase the plaintiff's net assets. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that such amount should be included in the calculation of earnings at the same time in the calculation of earnings.

On April 24, 2006, the Plaintiff did not include the amount equivalent to the extra debt in the accounting book of 2006 even though the Plaintiff was granted a loan from the Korean National Bank on April 24, 2006, and the amount was not appropriated in the accounting book of 2006. If a corporation's debt is discovered in the account book, the amount equivalent to the extra debt shall be included in the calculation of the income and disposed of as the income of the person to whom it belongs, but the same amount shall not be affected by the corporation's profit and loss, and at the same time be included in the calculation of the income of B. Accordingly, the Defendant disposed of the same amount as the income of 1 of this case by inclusion in the calculation of the income of B at the same time.

In the event that the sum of the corporate tax and additional tax payable by the Plaintiff is included in the calculation of the same amount as that of the instant 1 in accordance with the foregoing determination, the sum of the corporate tax and additional tax to be paid by the Plaintiff is an OO as listed below. Therefore, the portion exceeding the above OOO(original unit) in the disposition of this case should be revoked illegally.

Classification

Disposition of this case

Justifiable Tax Amount

Revenue amount

OOO

OOO

Current net income on the settlement

OOO

OOO

Adjustment of Income Amount

Gross income

OOO

OOO

Inclusion in Loss

OOO

Tax Base

OOO

OOO

calculated tax amount

OOO

OOO

Additional Tax on negligent tax returns

OOO

OOO

Late-paid Tax Amount

OOO

OOO

Total determined tax amount

OOO

OOO

Tax amount already paid

OOO

OOO

Notice Tax Amount

OOO

OOO

3) Judgment on the third argument

The plaintiff asserts that the interest paid in this case belongs to the National Bank and the Corporate Bank, not to the BB, and that the defendant's disposal of the income related to the one in this case by disposing of the one in this case as bonus, and therefore, the interest paid in this case should be excluded from the bonus disposal.

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that most of the funds that the Plaintiff received from the above banks were used by BB since the Plaintiff received from the National Bank on April 24, 2006, and transferred from the Enterprise Bank on May 10, 2006 the funds of this case to BB from the above banks. ② The interest paid by the Plaintiff to the above banks was paid for the loan of funds from the above banks; ② the interest paid by the Plaintiff to the above banks was considered expenses unrelated to the Plaintiff’s business and should be attributed to B, and ③ the Plaintiff paid the interest of this case to the above banks, which should have been borne by B, so the economic substance of this case should not be deemed to have been attributed to the above bank. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s argument that this portion of the interest paid by B was equivalent to the interest paid by the above banks.

4) Judgment on the fourth argument

The plaintiff asserts that the two funds in this case should be excluded from the bonus disposition, since the plaintiff temporarily used the OOOO to this B, but the two funds in this case can not be deemed to have been collected from this B to have arbitrarily used the two funds.

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff voluntarily used the instant two money, since the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have recovered the instant two money, taking into account the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

A) Although the Plaintiff transferred the OCO to thisB, it appears that the Plaintiff did not perform any accounting management for the transfer of the OCO to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff, among the above OCO members, was in charge of provisional payment, and submitted as evidence evidence evidence Nos. 12 and 16. However, on July 13, 2007, JeongCC remitted the OCO to thisB. The evidence Nos. 12 and 16 stated that the Plaintiff paid the OCO to thisB on July 12, 2007. ② The Plaintiff asserted that “in the course of tax investigation and tax trial,” the Plaintiff merely dealt with the instant amount No. 2 as the receipt due to a mere error, and there was no evidence that there was no such assertion or evidence related to the above assertion, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion other than the above evidence No. 12 and No. 16.16.

B) The Plaintiff appears to have accounted for the instant amount 2 with the provisional payment, upon receiving the transfer of the instant amount 2 from BB (the Plaintiff asserted that the instant amount 2 was accounted for as the return of the provisional payment, and submitted as evidence the evidence, but the Plaintiff received transfer of the instant amount 2 from BB on July 30, 2007. The Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 13 and 16 stated that the Plaintiff collected the instant amount 2 from BB on July 13, 2007, and ② in the tax investigation and tax trial procedure, the Plaintiff asserted that the grounds for accounting of the instant amount 2 was merely an error, and there was no evidence to prove that the content of the evidence Nos. 13 and 16 was difficult to believe it is, and there was no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion other than the above evidence No. 13 and 16.

C) The Plaintiff asserts that the content of No. 2 (A) and No. 18 (BB’s account) are not reliable on the ground that the content of No. 2 (A) and the content of transaction No. 18 (BB’s account) are inconsistent. However, the evidence No. 2 is a book prepared by the Plaintiff himself/herself and submitted to the Defendant, and it cannot be readily concluded that there was no transaction between the Plaintiff and B except the content of transaction No. 18.

D) According to the evidence No. 18, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount (OOwon) remitted from the account of this B to the Plaintiff’s account in 2007 is more than the amount (OOwon) remitted from the Plaintiff’s account to the account of this BB, and that the Plaintiff did not receive a refund of OO won, which was remitted to the Plaintiff on July 11, 2007 and July 30, 2007, and that there was no intention to receive a refund. However, it cannot be concluded that there was no transaction between the Plaintiff except the details of evidence No. 18, and that the Plaintiff did not have any intention to receive a refund, or that there was no intention to receive a refund. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.