Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap30431 (Law No. 24 May 2013)

Seocho 2012west 1664

LB is merely a person who is a shareholder to whom only dividends are paid, and it is reasonable to see the Plaintiff as the representative.

LB is registered as a joint representative director, but after the execution of the operation contract of May 27, 08, it was in the position of a shareholder who received only dividends, and the disposition of this case taken by the plaintiff into account as the representative of the company of this case is legitimate.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2013Nu18966 global income and revocation of disposition

Park AA

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap30431 decided May 24, 2013

January 24, 2014

February 7, 2014

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. On February 1, 2012, the part of the disposition imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on the imposition of OOO(including additional tax) of global income tax in 2008 exceeds OOOO(including additional tax) and OOO(including additional tax) of global income tax in 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

"The reasons for this decision" are as follows: "The last MOO of the highest BB column in Part VII of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revised to "OOO"; and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as stated, except that the following subparagraph 2 is added to the 8th page:

E. Determination as to the person liable for the omitted sales

The plaintiff asserts that, from May 5, 2008 to March 2009, the plaintiff and tearB acquired the cash earnings of the company of this case by dividing them into the OOOOO and the OOOO. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the amount equivalent to the amount equivalent to the amount obtained by the plaintiff from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 (53.9%) out of the OOO which was accrued from July 1, 2008 to June 30, only the amount equivalent to the amount obtained by the plaintiff (53.9%) should be treated as income.

As long as the revenue of a corporation that was released from the register is not recorded in the book, the tax authority is bound to dispose of it as a bonus for the representative pursuant to the provisions of Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, so long as the attribution is not clear, and in such case, the burden of proving that the attribution is clear lies on the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du20805, Mar. 28, 2013; 92Nu6747, Aug. 14, 1992).

In accordance with the above legal principles, as seen above, it is recognized that B received a total amount of OO from the plaintiff who operated the company of this case from May 5, 2008 to March 2009. However, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 17, Eul evidence Nos. 5 (including the serial number), the testimony and arguments by the most witness of the court of first instance, the plaintiff was a window dressing accounting that manipulates the account books of the company of this case, so the details of the expenditure of the revenue generated during the above period are not known, and B cannot be acknowledged as having not verified the source of the revenue received from the plaintiff during the above period. In light of these circumstances, the plaintiff's assertion that B received the money from the plaintiff cannot be acknowledged as having accrued to 3B from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 cannot be acknowledged as having accrued to the plaintiff.

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