Plaintiff (Law Firm Dadam, Attorneys Choi Ho-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seocho Tax Office

September 1, 2009

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2008Guhap36074 Decided March 24, 2009

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on October 9, 2007 against the plaintiff on August 2, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and it is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except in the following cases. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

2. The 2nd 8th Myeon shall be referred to as “B”.

3. On August 11, 2006, the above judgment was finalized as the appeal was lodged on August 11, 2006. The above disposition of global income tax was revoked ex officio as follows, and Nonparty 1 withdrawn the above lawsuit on August 11, 2006.

3. On May 31, 2002, "the plaintiff reported and paid the tax base to the defendant on May 31, 2002, the total income tax amounting to KRW 57,485,170, global income tax amounting to KRW 11,645,50, and KRW 2001, which was assessed against the defendant on May 31, 2001." Accordingly, the plaintiff was working as the representative director of the Sejong Sejong District District Corporation in 2001. Accordingly, the above company, which was the withholding agent, seems to have withheld the tax base of earned income (tax base amounting to KRW 57,485,170, income tax amounting to KRW 11,645,50, and KRW 11,550) from the plaintiff through the year-end settlement and paid it to the tax authority (the source taxpayer may not make the final tax base return pursuant to Article 73 (1) 1 and (4) of the Income Tax Act).

7.On May 31, 2002, the following shall be added to each of the 7 pages 1:

[Attachment to Article 135 (4) of the Income Tax Act, Article 192 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 21 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if a disposition of income is made to the person to whom the income belongs regardless of whether or not the notice of change in the income amount has been served on the corporation, it constitutes "the amount disposed as bonus under the Corporate Tax Act" under Article 20 (1) 1 (c) of the Income Tax Act, and the income amount is the receipt date of the payment of labor during the pertinent business year (Article 39 (1) of the Income Tax Act, Article 49 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 21 (2) 4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Thus, the income amount of the person to whom the income belongs is subject to the disposition of taxation is established as "the amount disposed as bonus under the Corporate Tax Act" under Article 20 (1) 1 (c) of the Income Tax Act.

7. The 5th parallel " July 12, 2007" shall be applied to " July 21, 2006".

7. The 6th parallel " August 31, 2007" shall be applied to " August 31, 2006".

3. Conclusion

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, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)