Cho High-depth201Gu3540 ( October 20, 2012)

The bonus amount is deemed to have been discharged out of the company, and the disposal of the plaintiff is legitimate.

When considering that the facts charged in excess of the wages prescribed by the plaintiff without going through the general meeting of shareholders are recognized to constitute a crime of breach of trust and the judgment is finalized after a fine is sentenced, bonus amount is deemed to have been leaked, and the disposition to recognize the plaintiff is legitimate

2012Guhap2346 Global income and revocation of disposition

XX Kim

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

October 17, 2012

November 7, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on May 2, 2011 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is working as the representative director of the XXtech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “ XXtech”) for the period from April 9, 2007 to October 29, 2008, and from March 20, 2009 to March 19, 2009, and the maximumA was working as the representative director of the XXtech from October 30, 2008 to March 19, 2009.

B. As the director of the tax office did not report the corporate tax for the business year of 2008, he conducted a tax investigation with respect to the rest of 200, ① confirmed that the rest of the business is not actually operated on March 17, 2009, and ② confirmed that the rest of the sales amount of 00 won was omitted in the business year of 2008 and notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of 00 won under the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9267 of Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Corporate Tax Act") Article 66(1) and (3) of the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 104(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302 of Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act"), the Defendant made a disposal of 200 won and its total amount of 00 billion won to the Plaintiff.

C. On September 15, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed on January 20, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

Since the least AA, the former representative director of the XXtech, embezzled all of the bonus amount of this case, it is unlawful to make a disposition for the Plaintiff, not the lowestA, to be admitted as the Plaintiff.

3. Related statutes;

Attached Table 2(3) is as follows.

4. Determination

A. According to Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the amount included in the calculation of corporate tax shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative in determining or revising the corporate tax base. However, the recognition contribution system of the representative under the Corporate Tax Act is not based on the facts that such income has accrued to the representative, but rather on certain facts that can be recognized as such act in order to prevent unfair acts under the tax law, so that it shall be deemed as a bonus to a de facto representative regardless of the substance. According to Article 20(1)(c) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270 of Dec. 26, 2008), the amount treated as a bonus under the Corporate Tax Act is naturally included in the type of earned income, which is an element for calculating the global income tax, so the representative is obligated to pay the income tax to him/her unless it proves that the amount leaked is actually reverted (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du968.

B. We examine the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff failed to report the sales amount of 200 won in the business year of 2008, which is the filing deadline for the corporate tax for the business year of 2008, 200, 200 won from the date of the investigation into XXtech to the present date; 3, the Plaintiff’s business registration was ex officio on March 17, 2009 on the ground that it did not actually operate the business; 4, the Plaintiff’s bonus amount was leaked from November 2007 to May 208, 2008; 4, the Plaintiff’s bonus amount of 10,000 won to the Plaintiff’s maximum amount of 10,000 won for the business year of 200 to May 208, 2008.

5. Conclusion

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