Whether it does not fall under the case of outflow from the Hong Kong corporation and it is unclear;

사외유츌된 송금액이 홍콩법인에게 귀속되었으나 동 법인은 원고의 페이퍼 컴퍼니임을 고려하면 그 실제 귀속자는 배후에 존재하는 원고의 구성원이라 할 것이고 그 실제 귀속자를 구체적으로 특정할 증빙이 없어 귀속이 불분명한 경우에 해당함

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act [Disposition of Income]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The part of KRW 1,040,843,622 of the notice of change in the amount of income of KRW 1,043,786,958, which was given to the Plaintiff on August 8, 2005 (the notice of KRW 1,040,843,622 of the notice of change in the amount of income of KRW 200,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 7, 1998, the Plaintiff transferred USD 500,000 to the Hong Kong Company (○○○○○○○○ Investment Company; hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○○○ Company”). On December 14, 1998, USD 4.10,000 in total, USD 910,00 in total (hereinafter referred to as “the instant remittance amount”). At the time of the instant transfer amount, the amount of the instant transfer was deposited into the account of the Hong Kong Company (○○○○ SUG (H.K.) Specialized Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “○ Hong Kong”). At that time, the Plaintiff received accounting that paid the instant remittance amount to ○ Hong Kong.

B. The Plaintiff received 11 times from March 27, 200 to June 9 of the same year a total of 917,447 dollars from Sung Hong Kong (hereinafter “instant entry amount”), and then included them in the account book for the same period four times during the same period as “return of the amount of remittance of this case” (hereinafter “accounting”).

C. Notwithstanding the actual amount of the Plaintiff’s entry to Hong Kong, the amount equivalent to KRW 1,040,843,622, which was the conversion amount of the Plaintiff’s entry amount, was extinguished due to the Plaintiff’s settlement of accounts, and its attribution is unclear. Thus, the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s corporate tax base for the pertinent business year (from November 1, 1999 to October 31, 2000) by including the Plaintiff’s KRW 1,043,786,958, including the above conversion amount, as its gross income for the pertinent business year, and was employed as the representative director of the Plaintiff at the time of the settlement of accounts, from September 17, 1992 to May 27, 2002, and again notified the Plaintiff of the change of the Plaintiff’s entry amount to the representative director on July 31, 2007, and then notified the Plaintiff of the above amount of income for 2008,008.

D. On September 12, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a request with the National Tax Tribunal for a national tax trial on the instant disposition. On June 21, 2007, the National Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for a trial.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8, 15 to 17, 19 (including each number);

each entry of evidence 1 and 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

1) Although the instant disposition was a ground for disposition that the amount of the instant entry was “the Plaintiff’s export price to ○ Hong Kong,” the said export was a processed sale, so the instant entry amount does not constitute the export price, and therefore, there is no actual reason for disposition of the instant disposition.

2) Even if the amount of the instant deposit is not “return of the amount of remittance”, the accounting of the instant case was conducted by mistake and did not constitute an act of divulging the Plaintiff’s property out of the company, and thus, the amount of the instant deposit should be disposed of as internal reserve.

3) If the instant disposition was deemed to be an act of remittance of the Plaintiff’s remittance amount to be an act of outflow from the company, the subject of disposition of income to that act should be the business year of 1999 (from November 1, 1998 to October 31, 199). Therefore, the instant disposition erred in its business year.

4) The amount of the outflow from the accounts of this case was attributed to ○ Hong Kong, which does not constitute “where the reversion is unclear” as provided in the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. Thus, the defendant cannot dispose of it as a bonus to the representative.

(b) Related statutes;

Omission

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On February 17, 1993, the Plaintiff established ○ Hong Kong on 1993, and Hu○○ (the co-oper of Hu○○) was established as a company of ○○ in around 1998 as the so-called Paper Joint Company, which exists only on the document without any substance, and operated the Plaintiff’s Hong Kong and ○○○○ as its branch office at the Plaintiff’s Hong Kong office, while working as the Plaintiff’s Hong Kong branch office.

2) On November 25, 1998 and December 5, 1998, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for import of direct raw materials with ○○○○○ on the date of delivery of goods, and later remitted the instant remittance amount to ○○○○○ as an advance payment for the price of the goods.

3) From around 1996 to around 1998, the Plaintiff entered into four export contracts, as indicated in the following table contract number and contract amount column, (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant export contract”), and filed an export declaration thereon on the date indicated in the corresponding report date.

4) The Hong Kong transferred the instant entry money to the Plaintiff as the price by using the contract number of the export contract of this case. The Plaintiff received the transfer of the instant entry money from ○ Hong Kong and then accounted for the account book to “return of the instant remittance amount” as stated in the accounting statement in Section 3 of the above.

5) The Plaintiff’s representative director, from May 27, 2002 to July 31, 2007, was convicted on April 11, 2000 by the Seoul District Court Decision 2000Gohap223, which became final and conclusive around that time.

In fact, while exporting poly chips from polysp, the customs administration prepared and submitted a false export declaration certificate as to the export of goods imported as raw materials for export to obtain unfair refund of customs duties. From March 6, 1998 to December 6, 1999, the customs administration illegally received 683,292,90 won in total over 69 times from March 6, 1998 to December 6, 199.

6) On January 16, 2004, Seoul High Court Decision 2003No434 decided on January 16, 2004, each judgment of this case became final and conclusive around that time because the plaintiff (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") was not convicted of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (property flight) and violation of the Foreign Exchange Control Act due to the following criminal facts.

① Since ○○○ did not perform a contract on the import of raw materials related to the amount of remittance of this case by June 30, 199, and the refund claim was created, it shall be recovered from that time within a mandatory collection period (six months). However, even though ○○○ did not recover the refund claim of this case by December 31, 199 without obtaining permission from the president of the Bank of Korea.

② In collusion with Do○○○○ and Do○○ Rule, when the issue was the failure to recover the remittance amount of this case against ○○○○○○○ Company, the pertinent remittance amount was administered as having been paid to ○ Hong Kong on the Plaintiff’s account book, and Do○○ rule, ordered ○○○○○ to conduct the accounting of this case by having ○○ Nam, the head of the accounting team, receive an order from Do○○○, and let ○○○○○○○○○, the head of the accounting team, manage the instant remittance amount as if the instant remittance claim against ○○○ Company had been extinguished, thereby escape from the Republic of Korea by concealing the remittance amount

7) Meanwhile, in the above Seoul High Court case No. 2003No434, the plaintiff et al. claimed to the effect that "$ 749,088 of the remittance amount of this case to ○ Hong Kong was remitted as a settlement fund for the bill of exchange held by ○ Hong Kong, and the remaining USD 160,912 was appropriated for the payment of USD 172,502 for the raw material import amount imported from ○○○○○○." However, the above argument was that "$ 749,08 of the previous amount was paid to the plaintiff et al. for the settlement of the export amount to be paid to ○ Hong Kong even according to the plaintiff et al.'s assertion, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the remittance amount of this case was returned. The above argument was rejected for the reason that "$ 172,502 of the above direct material import amount from 19 December 19, 200 to 23."

8) On October 11, 2007, the Plaintiff et al. filed a petition for review of the instant judgment with Seoul High Court 2007No25 with respect to the purport that “the amount of remittance of the instant case was recovered by the transfer to the Plaintiff.” On July 11, 2008, the Plaintiff et al. received a decision to dismiss the petition for retrial on the ground that “the materials submitted by the Plaintiff et al. cannot be deemed to constitute “clear new evidence” under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the reappeal of the said decision was pending with Supreme Court 2008Mo794 as of July 18, 2008 after filing an immediate appeal against the said decision.

9) The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that “the amount of remittance of this case was returned to the Plaintiff through the representative director’s checks, etc.” in the national tax adjudication procedure regarding the disposition of this case, but thereafter, the Plaintiff changed its assertion to the effect that “the export contract of this case was processed sales, and the amount of remittance of this case was returned to the Plaintiff through the remittance of the deposited amount.”

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 9-1 to 3, Evidence No. 11 to 14, Evidence No. 18-1 to 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) As to the plaintiff's first argument

A) The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that he entered into the export contract of this case with a view to maintaining trade financing ceiling by raising the export performance. However, the following circumstances revealed from the overall purport of the above facts and arguments, namely, ① the Plaintiff et al. did not at all assert that the export contract of this case was processed sales at the time when criminal punishment was finalized and the disposition of this case was taken, and later, the export contract of this case was made; ② the above assertion was rejected by the court in the retrial procedure regarding the judgment of this case; ③ even if the Plaintiff filed a false declaration on export of the export contract of this case and received a false refund of customs duties, it cannot be deemed that the entire export contract of this case was processed sales. In light of the above facts, it is difficult to conclude that Hu○○ as seen earlier, as seen, reported the Plaintiff’s export goods to the Plaintiff in a false manner and received false refund of customs duties, and even if the Plaintiff received a non-prosecution disposition separately from the prosecutorial office’s testimony and evidence Nos. 9-3, 11 through 14, 20 through 25 (Ga number No.).

B) On the contrary, the instant disposition was a substantial ground for disposition that “the remittance of the amount of the instant deposit does not constitute the return of the amount of the instant transfer,” and in light of the following circumstances known from the facts recognized as such and the purport of the entire pleadings, the remittance of the amount of the instant deposit is deemed not the return of the amount of the instant transfer, and therefore, the said disposition is deemed to exist.

① The amount of the instant transfer was, in form, remitted by Hong Kong, not by the ○○○○ who received the remittance of the instant transfer, under the pretext of the price for the instant export contract, unrelated to the amount of the instant transfer.

② The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that most of the remittance amount of this case was not advance payment in criminal proceedings, but that the remittance amount of this case was returned to the Plaintiff separately from the remittance amount in the national tax proceeding.

③ ○○○ and ○ Hong Kong are substantially subordinate to the Plaintiff, and money transactions between them and the Plaintiff are complicated and frequent.

④ In light of the above circumstances, the actual nature of the remittance of this case, whether it was returned, and the method of return, etc. are clearly unclear. The Plaintiff asserted that “the amount of remittance of this case was returned to the remittance of the amount deposited in this case,” notwithstanding its own uncertainty, the Plaintiff merely asserts that “the amount of remittance of this case was returned to the remittance of the amount deposited in this case,” and does not assert any specific assertion or evidence on the transactional relationship surrounding the amount of remittance of this case or on the internal circumstances in which the amount of remittance of this case was returned (the Plaintiff asserts that ○ Hong Kong, other than ○○, is the actual party to the raw materials import contract, but it does not assert any specific circumstance such as conclusion

C) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) As to the plaintiff's second argument

As seen earlier, insofar as the remittance of the amount of the instant deposit does not constitute the return of the amount of the instant transfer, the accounting of the instant case on a different premise constitutes an act of reducing the Plaintiff’s assets by objectively smelling the intent not to recover the claim for return of the amount of the instant remittance, and an act of calculating the amount in the instant deposit amount with a false equivalent value, and thus, it constitutes an act of divulging the Plaintiff’s assets out of the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du9254, Apr. 9, 2004).

3) As to the plaintiff's third assertion

The instant disposition is deemed to be an act of outflow from the company, not an act of remittance of the remittance amount of the instant remittance, so the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

4) As to the plaintiff's fourth argument

The obligor of the remittance amount of this case is ○○○○ company (other than this, there is no evidence that the obligor is practically aware of the remittance amount of this case). The amount equivalent to the remittance amount of this case leaked out of the Plaintiff’s world through the accounting settlement of this case, i.e., the amount of the instant entry was reverted to ○○○ company. However, as seen earlier, in view of ○○ Company’s ○○ Company’s china, it is deemed that the actual owner would be a member of the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff’s ○ Company, and there is no evidence to further specify the actual owner. Accordingly, the outflow from the accounting settlement of this case constitutes “a case where the reversion is unclear” under the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

5) Sub-committee

After all, the plaintiff's arguments are without merit, and the disposition of this case is not erroneous as alleged by the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.