Cho High Court Decision 2012west069 (2012.05)

The omitted amount of sales shall be deemed to have been accrued to the representative director because it has already been leaked outside of the company.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as processing debts only on the pretext of which the obligation was not scheduled to be half the beginning of the year, and the amount of omission in sales that should have been stated on the account book as a corporation's revenue shall be deemed to have already been leaked to others and to have been reverted to the representative director, who is the other party to the transaction of the

2012Guhap20922 and revocation of the detailed employment income and disposition

AA Design Co., Ltd.

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

December 18, 2012

January 31, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of collecting KRW 000 as earned income tax on October 10, 201 to the Plaintiff on October 10, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 1, 2008 to January 2009, the director of the Si interest tax office notified the Defendant of taxation data that the Plaintiff omitted a return on the construction income amount of 0006 won (hereinafter referred to as “the construction income amount in dispute”) received after executing the Mocom remodeling project that the Plaintiff received from the BB, and the Defendant included the issue in the Plaintiff’s gross income following the notice of pre-announcement of taxation, imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 0100 of the corporate tax for the business year 2009, and issued the notice of the change in the income amount (hereinafter referred to as “the notice of change in income amount”) on August 1, 201, deeming that the amount included in the above gross income was leaked out of the company.

B. On October 10, 201, the Defendant issued a collection disposition of KRW 000 of the earned income tax on the source quota for the business year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on October 10, 201, when the Plaintiff failed to perform its withholding duty following the notice of change in the amount of income.

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal on January 11, 2012, but was dismissed on April 4, 2012, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 29, 2012.

[Standard for Recognition] The whole purport of the pleading, as described in the facts without dispute, Gap 1, Eul 2, Eul 1, 2, and 3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although it was true that the Plaintiff omitted the payment of the construction cost at issue at the time of filing the return on the amount of the construction cost, the tax authorities may verify the fact that the construction cost was paid in full as material cost and personnel expenses, and the tax authorities also recognized the payment of the construction cost at issue and imposed corporate tax by recognizing the aforementioned payment of the construction cost at issue, and thus treating the issue as bonus to the representative director and imposing income tax on the representative director is against the principle of substantial taxation and is against the principles of Nara's good faith and the principle of gold. In addition, when filing a revised return on the revised return on the revised return on the revised return by omitting the accounting of the construction cost at the request of the tax authorities for supplementation of the issues on the books at the end of 2009, the Plaintiff did not account the construction cost at the same time, and even if the Plaintiff did not account as the defendant's assertion, it was unlawful under the premise that this portion was not subject to any other counter-payment, considering that it was not appropriated as the representative director on the statement of financial position as of December 31, 2009.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As the taxation authority’s disposition of income and notice of change in the amount of income, a tax payment notice issued by the taxation authority as a result of the tax authority’s failure to perform tax obligation to withhold income tax after the tax authority’s disposition of income and notice of change in the amount of income is not a disposition of taxation but a disposition of collection ordered for the payment of the determined amount of income, and even if there are defects in the notice of change in the amount of income which is a prior disposition of income, it shall not be succeeded as it is to the subsequent disposition, unless there is a ground for invalidation. Therefore, if the tax authority’s disposition and notice of change in the amount of income are issued, it shall be subject to the tax liability to withhold income, and it shall not be contested in an appeal litigation against the tax collection disposition unless the notice of change in the amount of income is void automatically (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du14439, Jan. 26, 2012). In this case, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of this case’s nature as a collection disposition, but it is unreasonable in this case’s determination whether it constitutes invalid.

2) As a matter of principle, cash revenue in the current account is actually cash revenue, but it is not clear or complete transaction, and it is not clear that the account item or amount is not fixed, and the account amount received by a corporation is included in the current account, a temporary account, the cash revenue of which has not been determined, and even if the account was recorded as one of the counter-accounts, the current account shall be included in the current account, and if it is found that the current account was entered in the short-term loan transaction from the representative director, and that the current account is an obligation against the current representative director, it is not related to the change or increase of the net assets of the corporation, and it is not related to the corporation's profits or expenses, and if the current account amount is not entered in the current account, the amount omitted as revenue of the corporation should be included in the current account, and if the current account amount is not included in the current account amount, the current account amount should be included in the omission of income from the current account amount, and the current account amount should be included in the omission of income from the representative director (see Supreme Court Decision 2019Da17, supra.).

(3) The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's construction cost should be calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's total construction cost should not be calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's total construction cost should not be calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's construction cost should not be calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's total construction cost should not be calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's construction cost should not be calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's total construction cost should not be calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's construction cost should not be calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's total construction cost should not be calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's construction cost should not be calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's total construction cost should not be calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's construction cost should not be calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's total construction cost should not be calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's construction cost should not be calculated on the basis that the plaintiff's total construction cost should not be calculated on the basis that the defendant's 200 and the defendant's total construction cost should not be calculated on the basis of Kim 2008.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.