The instant labor costs, etc. do not constitute personnel expenses, which are items of loss.

The instant labor cost, etc. paid by the Plaintiff is not recognized as a labor contract relationship between the Plaintiff and BB, and thus does not constitute labor cost as an item of loss.

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

2014Guhap3990 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax

AAAA Corporation

a) the Director of the Tax Office

September 18, 2014

October 23, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of the corporate tax imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on April 12, 2013 is revoked among the OOO members of the corporate tax for the business year 2010 and the OOO members of the corporate tax for the business year 2011.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that has been engaged in construction business (electric construction, fire-fighting equipment, and cell equipment) since its opening on November 18, 1998.

B. The Defendant, around December 2012, analyzed the Plaintiff’s details of corporate tax returns from 2009 to 2011, determined that the following details cannot be recognized as deductible expenses.

(1) Of the amount appropriated by the Plaintiff as the daily labor cost, the total amount of OOOO won in 2009, 201, 201, as the resident registration number of the person to whom he/she belongs is erroneous, the aged, or the person who has other income, etc.

(2) The amount that the plaintiff appropriates as the external processing costs in 2011 and that no evidentiary materials are presented.

③ OOO members related to Nonparty BB, among the amounts appropriated as welfare expenses in 2011.

(1) The sum of the above, (2), (3) OOO

C. On April 12, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of imposition of corporate tax in 2009, OOOO, 2010, OOOOO(hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff.

D. The Plaintiff asserted that among the items excluded from the Defendant’s deductible expenses, the Plaintiff’s non-deductible members (OOO members in 2010, OOO members in 2011) and OO members of welfare expenses (hereinafter “instant labor expenses, etc.”) should be included in deductible expenses because the Plaintiff’s aforementioned daily labor expenses and welfare expenses paid to BB in the employment relationship had been fairly paid to BB in the employment relationship. However, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on July 8, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on December 19, 2013, and dissatisfied with this, filed the instant lawsuit on February 21, 2014.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

BB had been operated for a long time from 1970 to 2002 by CCC industry (hereinafter referred to as “CCC industry”). From 1976 to 1977, directors of DDD Industry Cooperatives are directors of DDD industry cooperatives and are closely related to the figures of the same industry. Accordingly, the Plaintiff commissioned BB as the Plaintiff’s business adviser, and the connection between BB’s past business adviser contributed to the Plaintiff’s order of construction and extension of sales. However, BB was unable to engage in financial transactions with bad credit, and thus, the instant labor cost, etc. was received as the account under the name of Kim E-E, the representative director of the Plaintiff, who is the wife, and thus, the instant labor cost, etc. should be included in the Plaintiff’s deductible expenses.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether it constitutes personnel expenses

Article 19 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "deductible expenses shall be the amount of losses incurred by transactions which reduce the net assets of the relevant corporation, excluding the refund of capital or financing, appropriation of surplus funds, and what is otherwise provided for in this Act," Article 19 (2) provides that "deductible expenses under paragraph (1) shall be generally accepted as losses or expenses incurred or incurred in connection with the business of the relevant corporation, or directly related to profits, except as otherwise provided for in this Act and other Acts", and Paragraph (4) provides that "matters necessary for the scope and classification of losses under paragraphs (1) through (3) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree" and Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23527, Jan. 25, 2012) delegated by the Corporation shall be as follows, and "deductible expenses under Article 19 (1) of the Act shall be included as one of the following except as otherwise provided for in the Act and this Decree:

In the interpretation of the above provisions, in order to include the amount paid by a corporation as remuneration or other bonus in the corporation's deductible expenses, the amount should be included in the above "labor cost", and in this context, it shall not be limited to the appearance of the appearance of the appearance. However, as Article 19 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act requires that "the loss or expenses incurred or incurred in connection with the corporation's business is generally accepted or directly related to the profit," the expenses paid by the corporation should be "the amount paid in return for the provision of labor" in order to constitute the labor cost, and therefore, it shall be interpreted that the labor contract relationship between the paid corporation and the person who received it is presumed to be a premise.

In light of the above provisions and legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances, the instant labor costs, etc. do not constitute personnel expenses, as it is determined that the instant labor costs, etc. do not fall under personnel expenses, and the instant disposition, which was made by non-Inclusion of the instant labor costs, etc., is legitimate.

① The Plaintiff asserts that BB was commissioned as a business adviser in order to assist in business receipt or increase in sales by using the connection of BB. However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is doubtful whether BB’s existing connection with BB could be helpful for the increase in sales, etc. of the Plaintiff, and whether BB paid the instant labor cost, etc. to the Plaintiff, i.e., whether BB paid the Plaintiff the instant labor cost, etc. in return for the Plaintiff.

② The Plaintiff asserts that there was a labor relationship between the Plaintiff and BB as a “business adviser” and concluded the advisory contract. However, BB appears as witness in this court and presented as evidence that it seems consistent with this. However, if there is a construction work that would enable ParkF to attend the Plaintiff Company once a week, the Plaintiff would come to go to the Plaintiff Company on the ground that “I would come to go to the Plaintiff Company.” At one week, I would come to work for 203:0 am a week, and come to the Plaintiff at 203:0 am a week, and we would come to her friendship after drinking, or come to her customer, and even according to BB’s statement, BB did not work under the control of the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff, but did not work under the control of the Plaintiff, and thus, it could not be said that the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff could not be included in the calculation of deductible expenses, and thus, it could not be said that the labor contract was not included in the calculation of deductible expenses.

2) The burden of proof of the tax base, which serves as the basis for taxation in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of tax disposition whether the instant labor costs, etc. actually accrue to BB, shall be imposed on the tax authority. Since the tax base is calculated by deducting necessary expenses from revenue, the burden of proof of revenue and necessary expenses shall be imposed on the tax authority. However, considering that it is easy to prove the fact that most of the facts causing necessary expenses are favorable to the taxpayer and are located in the territory under the control of the taxpayer, and that it is easy for the taxpayer to prove them, it is consistent with the concept of fairness to recognize the necessity of proof to the taxpayer by permitting the presumption of non-existence regarding the necessary expenses without the verification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1588, Sept. 23, 2004). Accordingly, in the instant case, the burden of proof as to the fact that the instant labor costs, etc. actually accrue to

In light of the above legal principles, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the labor cost of this case was attributed to BB solely based on the evidence supporting the fact that the Plaintiff’s labor cost of this case was attributed to BB, and the testimony of witness BB alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the labor cost of this case was attributed to BB. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. However, in full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the labor cost of this case, etc. was not attributed to BB in view of the facts of recognition as seen earlier, evidence No. 4, and evidence No. 2, and evidence No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

① The Plaintiff transferred the instant labor cost, etc. to the account of Nonparty KimE’s National Bank (Account Number OO-O-XO, hereinafter “instant account”). The said KimE is not only the representative director of the Plaintiff, but also KimE and BB to the wife of BB.

② In the instant account, Nonparty TradeG paid off and used the money, which appears to be an employee in charge of managing the Plaintiff’s expenditure.

③ The Plaintiff’s representative director Kim E-E voluntarily deposited money in the instant account.

④ No evidence exists to prove that BB directly withdraws money from the account of this case and uses it.

Therefore, even if BB used a credit card and the credit card payment was partially settled from the instant account, the instant account appears to be not the account reverted to BB, but the account mainly used by the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s representative director KimE. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the instant labor cost was reverted to BB even if it was deposited into the instant account.

3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, since the labor cost of this case not only seems to be not included in personnel expenses, but also cannot be deemed to have been actually attributed to BB, it is judged that the disposition of this case, which was not included in deductible expenses, is lawful.