Suwon District Court 2012Guhap3539 (2013.05.01)

early 201J 3255 ( December 20, 2011)

There is no violation of the corporate tax imposition disposition that did not include vehicle personnel expenses and personnel expenses in deductible expenses;

In the event that a taxpayer has omitted a report on the expenses to be included in deductible expenses, not only omitted a return on revenues to be included in gross income, the existence and amount of such expenses should be added by the verification of the claimant for inclusion in deductible expenses with respect to the fact that such expenses have been omitted.

Articles 19 and 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2013Nu14094 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

AAA Corporation

Head of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap3539 Decided May 1, 2013

December 11, 2013

January 8, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked: (i) the Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax for the Plaintiff on February 1, 201 205; (ii) the imposition of corporate tax for the Plaintiff on February 1, 201 207; (iii) the imposition of corporate tax for the year 2008; (iv) the imposition of corporate tax for the Plaintiff on February 11, 201 ; and (v) the imposition of corporate tax for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on February 21, 201 ; and (v) the imposition of corporate tax for the year 209 against the Plaintiff on February 20, 201 ; and (v) the imposition of corporate tax for the Plaintiff on February 20, 201 ; and (v) the imposition of corporate tax for the year 205 for the Plaintiff ; (v) the imposition of corporate tax for the year 207 ; and (v) the imposition of tax for the year 200 O209.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for adding a judgment on the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in the trial at the trial at the next time, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The wages paid to OB, etc. shall be included in the loss in calculating the corporate tax tax base as the labor cost under Article 19 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, as the plaintiff employed OB, EB, E, who is residing in China, from around 2005, had it carry out the business of importing stone, etc. from the Chinese company until around 2009.

B. Determination

“The circumstances cited by this court as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance court are as follows. A. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F.F.’s representative director in the case of violating the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (In Mancheon District Court 2010 high-level 41700), which entered the Plaintiff’s Chinese branch office in January 2006 at the time of the investigation into the Incheon Customs, stated to the effect that “GG, who entered the contact office located in the Chinese OOOO located in the Incheon Customs, performed the duty of importing stones, etc. from China.” It is difficult to acknowledge that the F.F. worked in the Chinese office for the Incheon Customs Office, GG, PH, shipbuilding, and this Section, and that it was difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s testimony and its branch office did not appear to have any other evidence as the Plaintiff’s employee in this case, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s testimony or its branch office from the Incheon Customs office.”

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.