Seocho 208west 4076 ( October 20, 2009)

Requirements for handling the amount of outflow from the company due to processing purchase as internal reserve;

If the amount of the outflow from the company is to be treated as an internal reserve under the above Enforcement Decree, it is not sufficient to recover the amount of the outflow from the company before knowing that there is a correction, and it is reasonable to view that such collected amount should be included in the gross income as tax adjustment

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 318,336,100 on June 12, 2008 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff received 19 copies of purchase tax invoices of 879,860,000 won of supply price from △ glass to the 2nd taxable period of the 2nd taxable period of the 2nd taxable period of the 2nd taxable year of the 2005, and filed a return of value-added tax and corporate tax without any real transaction. On June 11, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a return of change of corporate tax and value-added tax after adding the above supply price to the gross income

B. On April 8, 2008, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not recover the processed purchase amount as stated in the preceding paragraph, and notified the change in the amount of income by disposing of the Plaintiff’s bonus as the Plaintiff’s representative’s bonus, and the Plaintiff did not pay the withholding tax amount for the amount disposed of by the prescribed period under the Income Tax Act. On June 12, 2008, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a withholding tax amount of KRW 318,336,100 on the Plaintiff, a withholding agent of earned income tax, who is a withholding agent of earned income tax, (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on October 20, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 6

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

Although the Plaintiff received a tax invoice without a real transaction, all processed inputs prior to May 31, 2007, which was the time when he became aware that the amount of tax would be corrected, the above amount would not be out of the company. Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 106 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22035, Feb. 18, 2010) provides that "in cases where a domestic corporation collects illegally disclosed amounts, such as omitting sales and processing expenses, and files a report by including them in gross income as tax adjustment within the revised period under Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the disposition of income shall be deemed retained earnings: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases where the amount of outflow from the company is included in gross income with prior knowledge that there was correction, such as the receipt of a notice of tax investigation or the receipt of a notice of tax investigation or the receipt of a notice of the commencement of tax investigation, etc., only if a corporation meets certain requirements, it cannot be deemed as not falling under the outflow from the company itself because the amount illegally disclosed was recovered after the correction of the amount of outflow from the company. In light of the fact that it is difficult to judge that the amount of outflow from the company was included in gross income before correcting it as retained earnings under the above provisions of the Enforcement Decree.

On May 31, 2007, there is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff was served with the explanation of the explanation of taxation data, and the fact that the plaintiff filed the amendment statement on June 11 of the same year, the plaintiff did not recover the amount out of the company before knowing that the correction would be made, and did not include the amount in the gross income. Therefore, the defendant's failure to dispose of the amount as the retained earnings cannot be viewed as illegal because of the defendant's failure to dispose of the amount as the retained earnings (B) out of the amount claimed by the plaintiff, the defendant also recognized the fact that the above amount was deposited from the representative director's account to the plaintiff's account, but even if so, the above conclusion does not affect the conclusion).

3. Conclusion

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