early 2012 Middle 1596 ( October 27, 2012)

Whether the plaintiff is a party to the disposition imposing a source tax on the amount disposed of as bonus for a corporation

If, as a result of the tax investigation, the denial of losses and the disposal of bonus and the source tax are imposed on the corporation, the person to whom the bonus disposition belongs shall be dismissed as the plaintiff's qualification

2012Guhap4260 and revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax and income tax

KoreaA

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 9, 2013

September 3, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's imposition of the income tax on the plaintiff in January 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"CC (hereinafter "CC") had owned a building of 14-19 square meters and 2283 square meters and its ground (hereinafter "each of the real estate in this case") since before the date of July 9, 2013, when the lawsuit in this case was pending, the plaintiff and the joint plaintiff corporation of this case (CC was withdrawn from the lawsuit in this case on the third day of July 9, 2013, when the lawsuit in this case was pending, and hereinafter "CC") had owned each of the above real estate as the share of the plaintiff 582/1167 and 585/1167, and the above ground building was reported as the share of the plaintiff 582/167 and 585/1167.

C. The Defendant confirmed that the transfer value of each of the instant real estate owned byCC as an OOO source as a result of the corporate tax investigation with respect toCC, and determined and notified OOOOO source, the difference between the profit from disposal of tangible assets and the profit from disposal of false tangible assets, in the calculation of earnings (on October 4, 201, the Defendant determined and notified OOO source, which is the difference between the profit from disposal of tangible assets and the profit from disposal of false tangible assets, toCC on October 4, 201, on the ground that the above difference constituted the bonus of the Plaintiff who was the representative director ofCC at the time of the transfer (hereinafter “the notice of change in income amount”).

D. Meanwhile, on October 31, 2011, the Defendant imposed the earned income tax OOOOO on the Defendant on the ground of the bonus disposal amount of the above OOOOOOO on January 2006, and on November 1, 2011,CC accordingly paid the above OOOO to the Defendant.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 to 9 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

In January 2006, the defendant imposed OOO as income tax on the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "disposition on the plaintiff's assertion"), which is only five years for the exclusion period of national tax stipulated in Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, it should be revoked.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff’s assertion on the Plaintiff, and the instant lawsuit is unlawful as seeking revocation of the non-existent disposition (the Plaintiff appears to have filed the instant lawsuit on the ground that it erred by mistake that the Defendant imposed the Defendant’s imposition of the earned income tax OOOOO on the Defendant for January 2006).

Even if the subject matter of the Plaintiff’s seeking revocation of the instant lawsuit is called the notice of change in the income amount in this case, it cannot be said that the notice of change in the income amount to the Plaintiff, who is the representative director of the corporation, belongs to the Plaintiff, has an impact on the existence or scope of the Plaintiff’s global income tax liability. On the other hand, if global income tax is imposed on the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff may seek revocation directly against the disposition. Thus, even if the notice of change in income amount cannot be deemed an administrative disposition directly affecting the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Then, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, so it is decided to dismiss it, and it is decided as per Disposition.