Cho High Court Decision 201J 5052 (No. 22, 2012)

If the omitted amount of sales was appropriated as the provisional payment of the plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that it was out of the company and reverted to the plaintiff.

The fact of sales is omitted in the book and thus, it was appropriated as a provisional collection from the plaintiff et al. who is unrelated to the corporation's profit. Thus, the omitted amount of sales should be deemed to have been leaked to the plaintiff et al. and reverted to the plaintiff et al. by means of punishment.

2012 Cancellation of global income tax

The AAA

Head of the High Tax Office

April 23, 2013

June 4, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on May 3, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The ODC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "ODC") was a corporation with a place of business in the period of 000,000, and was established on January 1, 2008 for the purpose of real estate development and sales business, and closed on February 14, 201, after it was established on January 1, 2008. The Plaintiff, together with Nonparty GabO, served as the joint representative director of the above company from January 1, 2008 to April 21, 2010.

C. On September 10, 2010, the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the issue amount was deemed to have been actually reverted to the Plaintiff and GaO (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”), and on September 10, 2010, the director of the tax office disposed of KRW 000 corresponding to 1/2 of the sales amount as bonus and notified the change in the income amount.

D. The non-party company failed to perform its withholding duty within the statutory period, and the director of the tax office notified the Defendant of taxation data, which led to the Defendant’s correction and notification of the global income tax amounting to KRW 000,000, which reverts to the Plaintiff in May 3, 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On November 16, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed for a trial to the Tax Tribunal, but on November 16, 2012.

8. 22. Dismissal was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] The purport of the whole pleadings in Gap evidence 1 and evidence 2 without dispute

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The non-party company omitted the sales tax invoice of the person in charge at the time of the return of value-added tax, and the actual amount of the above amount cannot be grasped at the time of the settlement, and therefore, it is clear that the amount of the issue was paid to the OE Co., Ltd., and it is found that the amount of the issue was paid to the OE Co., Ltd., and the disposition of this case by the defendant imposing the

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Where a corporation fails to record its sales in the account book despite the fact of sales, the total amount omitted from sales should be deemed to have been leaked to a private place, and where the special circumstance exists that the amount omitted from sales should be proved by the corporation, and the amount omitted from sales should not be deemed to have been leaked to a private place, and even if the corporation has entered the account as if the amount received by the corporation through sales was not confirmed and the cash, which is the other party account, was entered in the temporary account, once it was entered into the temporary loan account, and it has been proved that the contents of the temporary loan account were entered in the account from the representative director, and it is against the other party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da101088, Feb. 1, 201).

See Supreme Court Decision 2000Du3726, supra.

2) Determination

In full view of the foregoing evidence, the whole purport of the pleadings, and the following facts are recognized in each entry of Gap evidence and evidence of Gap evidence of 2 to 7 (including household numbers):

① On February 19, 2009, the non-party company remitted 00 won, which is the same amount as the amount of waste disposal costs to non-party corporation (OO case). ② On March 12, 2010, the non-party company received an explanation from the director of the tax office of the tax base on the revised corporate tax return for the business year 2009, and processed 00 won, which is the omitted amount of sales (in dispute amount) in the gross income. However, according to the non-party company’s 10th 2009, the balance of the remaining amount of the non-party company was 00 won, and the non-party company did not receive the total amount of the remaining amount of the non-party company's 0 won after 00 years before 209, and the non-party company did not receive the above amount of the non-party company's total amount of the non-party company's 00 won after 200,000 won after 20,000 won.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.