Whether the total amount of the omitted amount can be considered as a bonus for the representative director if there is an omission in sales (affirmative)

Where a corporation fails to enter its sales in the account book despite the fact of sales, and the whole amount of the omitted sales, including the cost, shall be deemed to have been discharged from the company, and the total amount of the omitted sales shall be disposed of as a bonus to the representative director and the imposition of Class A earned income tax is justifiable.

Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 94-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu471 delivered on June 14, 1983, 83Nu381 delivered on February 28, 1984

Attorney Lee Jae-in, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu280 delivered on December 16, 1982

All appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of an appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

(A) On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the non-party's testimony of the non-party witness of the court below, which seems consistent with the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff exported all the products manufactured by omitting purchase, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and it is not based on the premise that the plaintiff's actual product delivery rate is above or identical to the product receipt rate of the public notice issued by the Industrial Promotion Agency, such as the theory of lawsuit, and in light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or lack of reasoning

(B) On the second ground of appeal:

If a corporation fails to enter its sales in the account book despite the fact of sales, the total amount of the omitted sales, including the cost amount, shall be deemed to have been released from the company. Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the court below should dispose of the total amount omitted sales in the business year 1978 of the Plaintiff corporation as a bonus to the representative director and impose the Class A earned income tax and defense tax accordingly, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the taxable income of the corporation, the decision of estimated investigation of the tax base for corporate tax, and the disposition of the corporation's income

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

The theory of lawsuit is justified in light of the purport that the court below failed to exhaust all the deliberation of the court below on the ground of the facts duly established and there is an error of law that misleads the facts against the rules of evidence, or in light of the records of the cooking process of evidence which was conducted to recognize the facts in its judgment, and there is no error of law by incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by violating the rules of evidence, and even in comparison with the records of the judgment of the court below, there is no error of law in violation of the principle of the Corporate Tax Act by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Corporate Tax Act, which is contrary to the principles of the imposition of national taxes

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)