Seoul Administrative Court-2012-Gu Partnership-38916 ( October 16, 2014)

Cho-2012-west-1845 (2012.07.04)

It is insufficient to recognize that the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiffs has additionally spent advertising expenses, etc.

With respect to the omission of the cost corresponding to omitted income, it is in accordance with the rule of experience and the principle of equity to assert and prove by a taxpayer who seeks separate deductions.

2014Nu1729 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Corporate Tax, etc.

AAAAA

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap38916 decided January 16, 2014

July 25, 2014

August 29, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On February 13, 2012, the defendant imposed corporate tax on the plaintiff for the 2010 business year belonging to the plaintiff and the person to whom the income belongs shall be bbb and the notification of the change in the amount of income disposed of as the bonus of the OOOOOOOO directors for the 2010 business year shall be revoked.

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

The reason for this decision is the same as the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Conclusion

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