Suwon District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-6652 (20 June 2016)

In the absence of special circumstances, omission in sales of a corporation shall be deemed to have been discharged out of the company.

Where a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite the fact of sales, the total amount omitted from sales shall be deemed leaked to a third party at the time of sales, except in extenuating circumstances. In such cases, the special circumstance that the omission in sales is not leaked to a third party shall be verified by the corporation asserting such omission.

Article 67 (Disposition of Income)

Seoul High Court 2017Nu58191 Revocation of Notice of Changes in Income Amount

OAF Co., Ltd.

O Head of tax office

December 01, 201

. 12, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

primaryly:

1. As to each income amount listed in the separate sheet of income in the Plaintiff on December 4, 2014 by Defendant OO head of the tax office:

(a) confirm that each notice of change in the amount of income in the year 2007 and 2008 is invalid;

(b) revoke each notice of change in income amount in the year 209, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.

2. As to the income tax (including additional tax) collected from the Plaintiff on May 25, 2016 by Defendant OO head of the tax office among the withholdings listed in the separate sheet of disposition:

(a) identify that the withholding of each income tax (including additional taxes) on the year 2007 and 2008 for the year 207; and

(b)to revoke the withholding of each income tax (including additional taxes) on the year 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 of the year to which it belongs;

3. As to the withholding of local income tax (including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on May 11, 2016 by Defendant OO head among the withholdings listed in the separate sheet of disposition:

(a) identify that the withholding of each local income tax (including additional tax) on the year 2007 and 2008 for the year 207;

(b) revoke the withholding of each local income tax (including additional taxes) for the year 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 of the year to which it belongs;

Preliminary,

1. On December 4, 2014, the notice of changes in each income amount in the attached Form No. 2007 and the business year 2008 issued by the director of the tax office on the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. Among the withholding taxes listed in the separate sheet of disposition, each of the local income tax (including additional tax) for the year 2007 to which Defendant OO head of the tax office reverted to the Plaintiff on May 25, 2016, and each of the local income tax (including additional tax) for the year 2007 to which Defendant OO head of the tax office belonged to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2016, and the year 2007 to which Defendant OO head of the tax office belonged to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2016

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

The reasons for this decision are as follows, and the fact-finding and decision of the first instance court are justifiable even in addition to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to this court, and are as shown in the reasoning of the first instance court, except for addition of the judgment that there is no error as alleged by the plaintiff. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. The further determination of this Court

A. The plaintiff asserted that KimO, ProfessorO, and KimO, who are related to the plaintiff's relatives with YO, have practically managed the plaintiff company with the shareholder's shares and the officer's qualifications, and the O was merely the representative director in the form of the plaintiff company and was in the employee's status.

B. If the evidence cited earlier and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 10, 11, and 14 (including various numbers), the plaintiff company was established on June 10, 1998, and the plaintiff company was registered as the representative director from May 26, 2001 to January 27, 2014. YellowO was employed as the auditor of the plaintiff company, and it was appointed as the internal director around November 2015. From around around 207 to around 2014, OO owned 33% of the shares of the plaintiff company, OO owned 40% of the shares of the plaintiff company, OOOO was registered as the representative director from May 26, 201 to 201, OOO was registered as the director from May 26, 2001 to 30% of the shares, and 100OO24% of the shares were registered as the representative director, 2014.

However, in light of the above-mentioned facts and the circumstances that the plaintiff and the Ocarra were a stock company with separate legal personality, the above-mentioned facts and the evidence cited earlier and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that OO was merely an employee status in the plaintiff company. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants should be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.