Daegu District Court 2010Guhap2878 (Law No. 29, 2011)

National Tax Service Review Income 2010-0024 (20106.01)

The actual owner of the commercial building omitted from sales should be seen as a corporation, so it shall not be deemed to have been disclosed from the company.

Since the actual owner of a commercial building omitted from sales is deemed a corporation, it cannot be deemed that the omitted amount of real estate sales was out of the company, so it is illegal to impose global income tax on the person who was recognized as a bonus and so affixed.

2011Nu1826 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

XX

Head of the Tax Office

Daegu District Court Decision 2010Guhap2878 Decided June 29, 2011

December 7, 2012

December 7, 2012

1.The judgment of the first instance, including a claim extended and reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2005 against the Plaintiff on October 13, 2009 and the imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2006 shall be revoked, respectively.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

On October 13, 2009, the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant revoked the part exceeding KRW 000 of the imposition disposition of global income tax (the amount calculated by deducting the already paid tax amount out of the total determined tax amount; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the plaintiff in 2005 and the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 2006 (the plaintiff extended his claim against the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 2005 at the trial, and reduced his claim against the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 2006).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 11, 1995 to February 16, 2009, the Plaintiff served as the representative member of Nonparty XX limited partnership company (hereinafter “non-party limited partnership company”).

B. On June 17, 2005, the non-party company sold to the non-party company KimA, ParkBB, ParkCC, and Lee DD (hereinafter referred to as "the purchaser of this case"). On June 17, 2005, the non-party company sold the 568-11m2 in North-gu, North Dong-dong 568-11m2, 634.1m2, 568-16m2 and 835.4m2 in the same area and 955m2 in its ground building (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case") for KRW 000,000, the sales price was reduced to KRW 00.

"The defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the non-party company from April 8, 2009 to April 24, 2009, confirmed that the non-party company transferred the real estate of this case to 000 won and filed a false corporate tax return with respect to transfer it to 000 won. ① When calculating corporate income in the business year 2005, the difference between the real purchase price of the real estate of this case and the purchase price stated in the account book (hereinafter "sale omitted amount") has been included in the gross income; the amount of KRW 00 is deemed as the internal reserve; the amount of KRW 200 is as the bonus for the plaintiff; the amount of KRW 200,000, as the substitute for the sale of the real estate of this case; the amount of KRW 20,000,000, which was the global income tax for the business year 200, which was disposed of to the plaintiff; and the amount of KRW 20,000,000, which was disposed of as a bonus for 2000.

"............." [the ground for recognition], and without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, 10, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) In lieu of receiving KRW 000,000 out of the sale price of the instant real estate, the non-party company would receive KRW 207 and KRW 307 from among the commercial buildings newly constructed on the instant real estate surface, and received the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s Dong E-E name for convenience, and used the remainder of KRW 000 as a bonus for the Plaintiff’s disposal of KRW 000 as a bonus to the Plaintiff in 2005.

(2) The portion of the Plaintiff’s disposal of KRW 000 as bonus for the Plaintiff in the business year 2006 exceeds KRW 000,000, stating that the provisional payment for the Plaintiff was not charged to the Plaintiff on the account books of Nonparty Company. As such, the part of the Defendant’s disposal of KRW 000 as bonus for the Plaintiff in the business year 2006 is unlawful.

B. The defendant's argument

(1) The commercial building registered in the Plaintiff’s name EE is not transferred to Nonparty Company or the Plaintiff as a substitute payment for KRW 000,000, which is a part of the instant real estate sales price.

(2) Even if the above commercial building was transferred by accord and satisfaction, the interest on the loan secured by the right to collateral security established in the above commercial building is repaid by the FFF of the Plaintiff’s wife, the Plaintiff treated the loan to be transferred by accord and satisfaction without any other members, and its actual owner is the Plaintiff, not the non-party company, in light of the details stated in the evidence No. 14, and the content of the evidence No. 14. Thus, the above commercial building should be deemed to have extinguished the outstanding claim for the purchase price against the purchaser of the non-party company at the time of the registration of transfer in the Plaintiff’s name, and at the same time the claim for the provisional payment was made against the Plaintiff of the non-party company. Accordingly, the claim for provisional payment should be treated as a bonus to the Plaintiff on February 19, 2009 or October 8, 2009, which is the date of the extinguishment of the special relation.

(3) According to the accounting books, etc. of the non-party company, it is clear that KRW 000 out of the omitted sales was used for the repayment of the Plaintiff’s provisional payment, the representative member. Thus, the above KRW 00,00, as bonus disposal, is justifiable

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010); Article 106(1)1 proviso of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22035, Feb. 18, 2010) provides that, in determining or correcting the corporate tax base, the amount leaked to the company out of the amount of gross income shall be deemed to have been attributed to the representative, although it is apparent that it has been leaked to the company out of the amount of gross income but its attribution is unclear. Such representative standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing standing being a bonus for a representative in order to prevent unfair acts under tax law. Therefore, in this case, the representative is obligated to pay Gap's income tax regardless of whether it actually reverts to the amount (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da.

In addition, if a corporation fails to enter its sales in its account book despite the fact of sales, the total amount omitted from sales, including the cost of purchase of raw materials, shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the company, barring special circumstances. In such cases, the special circumstance that the omission in sales is not leaked out of the company shall be proved by the corporation asserting it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002).

B. In the instant case, on June 17, 2005, the non-party company sold the instant real estate owned by the non-party company to the purchaser of the instant case at KRW 000,000, but when filing a corporate tax return for the business year 2005, the transfer value shall be reduced to KRW 000,000. As seen earlier, the non-party company shall be deemed to have transferred the commercial building in accord and satisfaction and trust it in the Plaintiff’s name.

On April 2009, HanG, who was appointed to the representative member of the non-party company as the plaintiff's successor, was the defendant around April 2009. The actual transfer value of the real estate of this case is KRW 000,000, which was used as corporate funds, paid KRW 00,000 to ParkCC as sales commission, paid KRW 00 as dividends to five shareholders. 00,000, was used as corporate funds after the settlement of accounts with the collection of provisional payment to the plaintiff. 00, and 00,000 won was used as corporate funds after the settlement of accounts with the collection of provisional payment to the plaintiff. The records of the non-party company were prepared to the effect that the plaintiff's use cannot be known. The fact that the building alleged by the plaintiff was not appropriated as the assets of the non-party company, or that it was not appropriated as the assets of the non-party company.

그러나 갑 제2, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20호증, 갑 제3호증의 1 내지 4, 갑 제4, 18호증의 각 1, 2, 갑 제5호증의 1 내지 5, 을 제10호증, 을 제15호증의 1 내지 6의 각 기재 및 영상, 제1심 증인 박CC의 증언, 제1심 및 당심 증인 양HH의 각 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 모아 보면 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 이 사건 매수인들은 2006. 7. 11. 이 사건 부동산 중 포항시 북구 XX동 568-11 지상에 집합건물인 지상 4층의 상가 건물(이하 '이 사건 상가'라 한다.)을 신축한 후, 2007. 7. 19. 원고의 동생 이EE 명의로 이 사건 상가 중 207호, 307호(이하 '상가 207호, 307호'라고 한다. 아래 202호, 302호에 관하여도 같다.)에 관하여 2007. 7. 16. 매매를 원인으로 하여 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 준 사실, ② 한편 이 사건 매수인들로부터 이 사건 상가 중 202호, 302호를 매수한 박CC의 처 이화정은 2007. 5. 28. 소외 회사의 무한책임사원 이던 양HH 명의로 상가 202호, 302호에 관하여 채권최고액 000원의 근저당권설정등기를 설정해준 사실, ③ 이 사건 매수인들 중 한 명이자 이 사건 부동산 매매를 알선, 대리한 박CC는 제1심에서, 이 사건 부동산의 매매대금 중 000원을 지급하지 못하고 있다가, 2007.경 소외 회사에 대한 대물변제조로 상가 207호, 307호 는 소외 회사가 지정한 이EE 명의로 소유권이전등기를 해주고, 상가 202호, 302호는 양HH 앞으로 근저당권 설정을 해주었는데, 상가 207호와 307호의 가치가 000원이어서 나머지 잔금 000원을 보장해주기 위해 양HH 명의로 자신의 처 소유의 202호, 302호에 근저당권을 설정해준 것이라는 취지로 증언하였고 같은 취지의 확인서를 제출하였으며, 소외 회사의 무한책임사원 양HH도 당심에서, 다른 사원들로부터 위임을 받은 대표사원이던 원고가 박CC와의 사이에 이 사건 부동산 매매대금 미수금의 대물변제조로 상가 207호, 307호를 양도받고 상가 202호, 302호는 근저당권 설정을 하기로 하였다고 하여 같은 취지로 증언한 점, ④ 배GG가 2009. 5.경 작성한 소외 회사의 비공개 장부로 보이는 갑 제11, 14호증{갑 제14호증은 갑 제11호증의 일부이다. 피고는 갑 제11, 14호증(이사님들 지출 및 수입)이 배GG가 작성한 것이 아니라고 하면서 진정성립을 부인하나, 갑 제19호증의 기재(이에 첨부된 '이사님들 지출 및 수업에 의하면, 갑 제11, 14호증은 배GG가 종전 직장인 병원에서 근무하면서 사용하던 용지의 이면지를 사용한 것으로 보인다.)와 당심 증인 양HH의 증언에 의하면, 위 서류는 소외 회사의 대표사원이던 배GG측이 비공식적 장부로 작성한 것으로 보인다.}에서도 '영포미수금 000원, 대물매입'이라고 기재되어 있는 점, ⑤ 소외 회사는 당시 원고를 포함하여 6명의 사원(무한책임사원 4명, 유한책임사원 2명)이 있었고 다른 사원 들이 원고에게 이 사건 부동산의 매각대금 마수금의 회수를 독촉하고 있었는데도, 원고가 000원이나 되는 금액을 몰래 횡령하거나 그 대물로 받은 상가 207호, 307호를 자신의 실제 소유로 하려 하였다고 보기는 어려운 점,® 피고의 세무조사 당 시 대표사원이던 배GG와 양HH이 원고를 업무상 횡령으로 고소한 사건에서, 배GG 는, 매매잔금 000원을 대물로 받았고 박CC에게 사례금으로 000원을 주었다 는 원고 주장을 믿기 어려우므로, 당시 유일하게 내근근무를 하던 양HH과 포항세무 서를 통하여 원고의 횡령 여부를 밝혀달라고 진술하였으나, 수사기관은 고소인 양HH 이 원고가 미수금 000원을 대물로 받기로 한 것은 맞으므로 임의로 착복한 것은 아니더라도, 미수금 000원의 대물변제 처리 등은 이사회의 결의를 얻지 않았으므로 문제가 된다는 등의 취지로 진술한 점 등을 근거로 원고가 000원 (= 000원 + 000원)을 착복하지 않았다고 하여 무혐의 처리한 점, ⑥ 상가 207, 307호를 담보로 한 하나은행 대출금채무의 이자를 소외 회사의 재정상태가 악화 되기 전까지 1년 이상 소외 회사가 부담해온 점, ⑦ 이 사건 부동산 미수금 000원은 세무서에 신고한 매매대금에 포함되지 않기 때문에 소외 회사로서는 상가 207호, 307호를 소외 회사의 명의나 사원들의 명의로 소유권이전등기를 경료하기는 어려웠던 것으로 보이는 점, ⑧ 원고나 이EE가 상가 207, 307호의 실제 소유자라면 이를 사용•수익하였을 것인데, 상가 207호, 307호는 건물 완공 이후 전혀 사용되지 않고 현재까지 방치된 상태로 있는 점, ⑨ 배GG는 양HH의 증언 등에 비추어 자신도 이 사건 부동산 매매대금에서 상당금액을 배당받았음에도, 피고에게 제출한 확인서 등에 자신은 전혀 배당받지 않은 것으로 기재한 점에서 배GG의 확인서 등은 믿기 어려운 점 등의 사정에 비추어 보면, 소외 회사의 대표사원이던 원고는 이 사건 부동산 매매대금 중 미수금인 000원을 이 사건 매수인들이 지급하지 않자 그 지급 확보를 위하여 상가 202호, 302호에 관하여 무한책임사원 양HH 명의로 근저당권설정등기를 경료받고, 소외 회사에 대한 대물변제조로 상가 207호, 307호를 양도받기로 하되, 위 미수금이 세무서 신고금액에 포함되지 않은 관계로 원고의 동생 이EE에게 그 명의를 신탁하여 소유권이전등기를 경료한 것으로 봄이 상당하고(다만, 이 사건 부동산의 소유권이전등기는 이 사건 매수인들이 이 사건 부동산 중 토지 위에 이 사건 상가를 신축 하여야 하는 사정상 잔금을 다 지급받기 전에 이 사건 매수인들에게 경료해준 것으로 추측된다.), 피고가 주장하는 사정이나, 을 제3, 4, 5, 13, 17호증의 각 기재만으로는 위 인정을 뒤집기에 부족하다.

In addition, even if the Plaintiff’s title trust of the instant real estate to his East E, the non-party company held claims equivalent to KRW 000 in the balance of the purchase price of the instant real estate against the purchaser of the instant real estate, and cannot be deemed to have leaked KRW 000 in the balance of the purchase price of the instant real estate out of the company.

Therefore, since the actual owner of the commercial building 207 and 307 is the non-party company, it cannot be deemed that 000 won out of the omitted sales amount of the real estate of this case was out of the company. Thus, the defendant's disposal of 000 won against the plaintiff in the business year 2005 as bonus and based on it, it is illegal that the defendant made a disposition of taxation belonging to 2005. The defendant's assertion based on the premise that the actual owner of the commercial building 207 and 307 is the plaintiff is no longer reasonable.

C. Next, we examine the remainder after deducting the above KRW 000 from the amount disposed of as bonus to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.

The plaintiff filed a complaint of 00 won which the non-party 1 to 5, 6, 16, and 19 (the evidence No. 16 of this case) with the non-party 10 members of 00 won out of the total amount of 00 won paid 00 won to the above 00 won out of the total amount of 00 won paid 0 won to the above 00 won out of the total amount of 00 won paid 0 won to the above 00 won out of the total amount of 00 won paid to the above 00 won (the non-party 10 won out of the total amount of 00 won paid 0 won to the above 00 won out of the total amount of 00 won paid 0 won to the above 00 won, and the non-party 2 received 00 won out of the total amount of 00 won paid to the above 00 won out of the amount of 00 won in lieu of the above 00 won out of the total amount of 000 won.

According to the above facts, from 00 won which was actually held by the non-party company among the sales omission related to the sale and purchase of real estate of this case, 000 won including the plaintiff's dividends, was distributed to its members, and the remaining 00 won was used as corporate corporate bonus. Thus, if the defendant sold 00 won to the plaintiff in the business year 2005 and 000 won excluding the plaintiff's dividends out of 00 won disposed of as bonus in the business year 2006, 100 won (i.e., 00 won - 00 won) were not attributed to the plaintiff. According to the above facts, 200 won was used for paying 10 won in the account of the non-party company's previous provisional payment, it is difficult to expect 100 won out of 00 won which was actually held by the non-party company's 600 won out of 00 won which was deposited in the account of the non-party company's previous advance payment.

Therefore, on different premises, each bonus disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff is unfair, and the part of the tax disposition for the year 2005 and the tax disposition for the year 2006, which was reverted to the Plaintiff, which exceeded the dividend of KRW 000,000, should be deemed to be unlawful. However, from the tax disposition for the year 2006, the legitimate notice tax amount for the Plaintiff when only KRW 00,000, out of the retained earnings in 2005, is attributed to the Plaintiff ( = 000,000 - already paid tax amount) is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, the portion of the tax disposition for the year 2005 and the above tax disposition for the year 2006 should be revoked as unlawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by changing the judgment of the court of first instance to accept the plaintiff's claim, including the extended and reduced claim in the trial.