early 201 middle 0834 ( September 6, 2012)

It is difficult to deem that it was out of the company because it was used as operational funds related to business.

It is recognized that 780 million won, out of 1.56 billion won, was used as operating funds related to the business of a corporation, and the remainder was used in paying personal debts to the representative, so the disposition is lawful within the limit of 786 billion won.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2012Guhap15914 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Corporate Tax, etc.

AAA, Inc.

Deputy Director of Central Tax Office

January 8, 2014

January 22, 2014

1. On November 25, 2010, the part of the notice of change in the amount of income of the OO207 business year, which the Defendant made to the Plaintiff as the OB (resident registration number OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-201) with respect to the Plaintiff, exceeds the OOO-O-O-201 of the notice of change in the amount of income of the OO-207 business year.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On November 25, 2010, the Defendant’s notification of change in the income amount of the O207 business year, the income earner of the Plaintiff on November 25, 2010, made the income earner as the headB (OO-O-OO-OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-dong 683 O-O-O-O-O-O-dong O-O-O-O-O-201), and revoked the notification of change in the income amount stated in the attached table of notification of change in the income amount.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff was established on April 3, 1998 for the purpose of production and sale of new and new medicine. On May 31, 2006, the plaintiff transferred all the shares issued by the plaintiff to CCC through a stock exchange contract with CCC (hereinafter referred to as "CCC") on May 31, 2006. On the other hand, the plaintiff's shareholders acquired 28,713,901 shares newly issued by CCC in accordance with its holding ratio, and then the plaintiff was bypass list to the KOSDAQ (hereinafter referred to as "in this case's bypass list"). On the other hand, the KB was the plaintiff's representative director from March 29, 200 to March 20, 200, the plaintiff was issued 20000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000))).).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) It is true that the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice without being supplied with the goods from E and paid the price in advance. However, part of the prepaid amount was actually supplied with research equipment and reagents from E and settled the price in advance. Since the remainder was used for the purpose directly related to the Plaintiff’s business, such as purchase of research equipment and prototypes from other locations and use them as the price, etc., after being returned from E and being returned from E, it cannot be deemed that the said amount was leaked out of the company. Accordingly, the first disposition based on the different premise is unlawful.

“2) The instant bypass listing was carried out through an all-inclusive share swap between the Plaintiff and CCC, which is similar to mergers in that the disposal and transfer of existing shares is enforced, unlike the “stock exchange” under the Civil Act, and the comprehensive exchange and bypass listing of the said shares are carried out as part of the business for corporate restructuring. As such, the advisory fee disbursed in the course of carrying out the business for corporate restructuring is not the cost to be borne by the shareholder but the cost to be borne by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the second disposition based on the different premise is unlawful,

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the first disposition

A) According to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8831 of Dec. 31, 2007) and Article 106(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619 of Feb. 22, 2008), if it is clear that the amount included in the calculation of income subject to taxation by appropriating the expense of a corporation has leaked out of the company, the tax authority shall dispose of the income from bonus, dividend, and other outflow of the company according to the person to whom the expense belongs, unless there are special circumstances, if the corporation appropriates the cost of processing in its account in its account, it shall be deemed that the corporation's income equivalent to the processing cost has been leaked out of the company. In this case, the special circumstance that the total amount of the processing cost has not been leaked out of the company as otherwise alleged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du3726, Jan. 11, 2002).

B) According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in No. 8, No. 8, and No. 8, the Plaintiff received the first tax invoice for processing without real transactions from EE around March 2007, and received a group of OOO won for the supply price from EOE during eight times during the period from March 22, 2007 to April 9, 2007, and the above OOOB was returned to the account or cashier's checks in the name of the applicant, such as the account under the JJ's name, etc., with the Plaintiff's representative director, the second type II of the Plaintiff's second type II, which is operated by EOB, and the second class B used the money returned from EOB as operating funds related to the Plaintiff's business, such as purchase of research equipment. However, it is recognized that the remaining OOB was used for the Plaintiff's personal debt repayment, etc., and there is no other evidence that the Plaintiff submitted it through the above OOB.

Therefore, the first disposition is lawful within the scope of the OOOO, and the exceeding part is illegal. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the scope of this scope.

2) As to the second disposition

A) According to Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010) and Article 106(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619, Feb. 22, 2008), where it is obvious that the amount included in the calculation of the income has leaked out of the company, in filing a report on the corporate tax base on the income for each business year, or in determining or revising the tax base on the legal advice, and where it is obvious that the person to whom it belongs is a shareholder, etc. (excluding a shareholder who is an executive officer or employee), it shall be deemed that the person to whom it belongs is divided as a dividend to the person to

(B) According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s respective entry and arguments regarding the management rights of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder group, the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder group that the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder of the 2nd shareholder group would be paid for the 1st shareholder of the 2nd shareholder group of the 1st shareholder group.

3. Conclusion

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