Incheon District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-32879 ( August 27, 2015)

Whether the amount of the provisional payment of this case can be included in gross income as well as the attempted amount

The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds to exclude inclusion of the Plaintiff’s shares in the gross income and attempted income from the representative director, since the Plaintiff could not obtain the Plaintiff’s shares as collateral from other creditors.

Article 28 of the Corporate Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2015Nu59312 Revocation of Disposition of Notice of Change in Income Amount

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

6.28

August 30, 2016

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) deleted from No. 5 to No. 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) deleted from No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) it is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case’s re-use of No. 6 of the same Act; and (d) thereby,

2. Part to be used again; and

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments and arguments in Eul's evidence Nos. 6 through 10 and Eul's evidence Nos. 11 through 19 (including paper numbers) and the financial transaction information meeting with respect to BB of this court, the plaintiff entered into an agreement to obtain a loan of 75 billion won in total fromCC Co., Ltd. on January 11, 2008 for the purpose of establishing funds for the new construction and sale of a non-astronomical terminal. DDR at the time provides joint and several suretys for the plaintiff's obligations with respect to the 62,10 shares of the plaintiff company held by it and its FF, with respect to the 62,10 shares of the plaintiff company held by it, 1stCC Co., Ltd., E, and 3rd GG Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the plaintiff entered into such agreement as above, 3rd pledge rights holders' share certificates and pledge rights holders' share certificates, 3rd pledge rights holders' share certificates and pledge rights' share certificates' issuance without delay.

According to these facts, the Plaintiff’s issuance of the Plaintiff’s shares held by DD as collateral to secure the loan claim against DD on April 1, 2008 cannot be provided as collateral to other creditors, such as whollyCC Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff cannot be provided as collateral for the Plaintiff’s shares. Thus, the Plaintiff’s related party under Article 6-2 subparag. 2 of the above Enforcement Rule cannot be deemed to fall under “the case where the Plaintiff was provided as collateral for the claim to recover the Plaintiff’s shares.” The Plaintiff’s above assertion without merit (the Plaintiff entered into a pledge contract with CC Co., Ltd. on the instant shares, but the issuance of the share certificates was only effective if the share certificates were issued, the Plaintiff did not issue the share certificates to CC Co., Ltd.., Ltd., but the Plaintiff’s establishment was not effective. However, according to the above pledge contract with DCC, which is the object of the pledge right, the Plaintiff’s delivery of the share certificates, even if it did not consent to the establishment of the pledge right.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

Inasmuch as this conclusion is unfair, the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.