The disposition of this case, which was disposed of as a whole by recognizing the entire amount of outflow to the plaintiff, is legitimate.

The notice is served on the actual address of the Plaintiff and received by his spouse is lawful. The construction cost of this case does not affect the corporation’s deductible expenses as well as the corporation’s deductible expenses, and does not affect the profit accrued to the Plaintiff, and it is reasonable to view that the total amount omitted from sales was reverted to the Plaintiff in the year when the income was disposed of. Therefore, the disposition of

Article 106 (Disposition of Income)

2014Guhap2233 global income and revocation of disposition

Song AA

○ Head of tax office

March 5, 2015

April 2, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on April 17, 2013 of the global income tax for the year 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plan for the construction of machinery and equipment is a company that carries out the plan for the construction of the machinery and equipment, and the plaintiff is the representative director of the company.

B. On May 1, 2006, an apartment construction project (hereinafter referred to as the "construction project in this case") among the construction works of the ○○2 apartment construction project from the construction of the ○○○ apartment construction project (a contracting party to the ○○○○○ general construction project, a contracting party to the ○○○○ apartment construction project, a contracting party to the ○○○ general construction project), shall be awarded a subcontract for the construction project (hereinafter referred to as the "construction project in this case") and completed the construction project on May 30, 2007.

"Around December 2010, the head of the ○○ Tax Office confirmed that, although the construction of the "○○ General Construction Co., Ltd." did not pay the construction cost directly to subordinate companies, such as the "○○ Construction Co., Ltd., in the absence of a report on sales related to the construction work by the tax authorities," and notified the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over subordinate companies, such as the "○○ Construction Co., Ltd.," to notify the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the business entity, such as the "○ Co., Ltd., which did not report sales related to the construction work". On February 13, 2012, the defendant notified the "○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd. (including additional construction cost ○○○○○ Co., Ltd.)" to the "O○ Construction Co., Ltd. (including additional construction cost ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd.)" to the "O○ Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., which omitted sales."

E. On April 1, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to correct and notify ○○○○○○○ (including additional tax) (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The notice (hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”) was served on April 17, 2013 as “○○○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○, and received the Plaintiff’s wife.

(f) The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 25, 2013 after filing an objection on July 2, 2013. However, on April 18, 2014, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the claim that "the claim that "the construction cost of the construction cost of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ is excluded from the amount subject to the bonus disposition" was that "the construction cost of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was already treated as necessary expenses and there is no disposition subject to the objection under the Framework Act on National Taxes," while the remaining claims were all dismissed by deeming that there is no dispute [the grounds for recognition], Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case should be revoked because it is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) On March 29, 2013, the Plaintiff moved from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, 15-17, and 102 (○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, 176-ro 30,506 (○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○), to ○○○○○○○○, 176-ro 30,506 (○, ○○, ○○, ○○), and the instant notice is served on the previous residential place that the Plaintiff does not reside, and the place of payment of the income tax of the resident is against Article 6(1) of the Income Tax Act, and thus, the instant disposition of imposition in question is unlawful (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Chapter 1”).

2) The construction cost of this case agreed with the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. Construction Co., Ltd. is ○○○○○○○. The construction cost of this case among the construction work of this case is ① the cost incurred by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., and Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., Ltd., to Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., and Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., paid to ○○○○○○○-○○ Co.

3) In light of various circumstances such as the fact that the price for the disposal of the apartment house was inevitably paid to the apartment house by the KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO made the payment of the construction cost in this case, and that the KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO made the payment of the construction cost in this case, the construction cost in this case and the construction cost paid by the KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO as the payment in lieu of the construction cost (hereinafter referred to as the "construction cost in this case") should be deducted from the profits accrued to the plaintiff, but the disposition in this case, which was disposed of as the whole out of the company to the plaintiff, was unlawful (hereinafter referred to as the "section 3").

4) The time when the amount of disposal of income is reverted should be deemed to be the time when the actual construction cost is received by the registration of the apartment that was paid in lieu of payment, or when the apartment is sold and received in cash (hereinafter referred to as “Chapter 4”).

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the first proposal

The documents prescribed in the Plaintiff’s tax law are served on the name-holder’s address, domicile, business office, or office (see Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). The above address is "place on which ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 1766,506, supra.

2) Determination as to the second proposal

A) Where a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite a fact of sales, barring any special circumstance, the total amount omitted from sales shall be deemed leaked, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the taxpayer who asserts the omission of sales shall prove that the amount omitted from sales was not leaked out of the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du611, May 13, 2013).

B) On May 1, 2006, the construction cost of the instant construction project was contracted from the construction by the KO○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”) to the construction cost of the instant construction project from May 1, 2006 to the construction period from May 30, 2007, and completed the construction on May 30, 2007, and only reported the difference as sales amount, and did not report the sales amount of the instant construction cost to the KO○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales cost, which is not the difference in construction cost.

3) Determination as to the third proposal

A) The representative director or actual manager, etc. of a corporation who used his/her position and distributed corporate profits to himself/herself out of the company and used them for the business of the corporation constitutes bonus or temporary salary, barring any special circumstance. The act of using corporate funds, such as embezzlement by the representative director or actual manager, etc. of a corporation, is not conducted under the premise of early recovery, and thus, it constitutes a outflow from the company as an expenditure itself. On the part belonging to the representative director or actual manager, etc. among the outflow from the company, if the income tax liability is established, it cannot be affected by the tax liability already accrued even if the person to whom the income tax belongs has returned the amount to the corporation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du324, Sept. 14, 201).

B) We look back to the instant case, and ① even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant construction cost is the money paid for the construction cost. This is merely an impact on the Plaintiff’s losses, and it is not a kind of deduction from the profit accrued to the Plaintiff. ② In the case of apartment-related expenses, the apartment-related expenses are deemed to have been discharged from the Plaintiff, which is the full amount omitted from the sales, and so long as the reversion is unclear, the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff are deemed to have been recognized as the representative director, and ③ as long as the income is regarded as earned income under the Income Tax Act, it is not recognized as necessary expenses, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without any further review (the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, as the Plaintiff directly bears the construction cost of this case and should be deducted from the profit accrued to the Plaintiff), and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently from the construction cost omission amount corresponding to the construction cost of this case.

4) Determination as to Section 4

As seen earlier, as long as the total amount omitted from the sales report was disposed of as a result of the separation from the company due to the uncertainty of the ownership, it is reasonable to view that the total amount omitted from sales was reverted to the Plaintiff in the year 2007, which was disposed of by omitting sales. Therefore, the first-party Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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