종합소득세부과처분취소[국승]
Global Income Detailed and Revocation of Disposition
From August 11, 2011 to September 19, 2011, the fact that the Plaintiff was registered as a representative director on the corporate register of the instant legal entity is identical to that recognized earlier. Accordingly, according to the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff should prove the circumstance that the Plaintiff was not the actual representative of the instant legal entity, and the lack of proof therefor is insufficient.
The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.
Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
2017Guhap1170 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition
W**
Head of the tax office
on October 23, 2018
on 14, 2018
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
The Defendant imposed imposition of KRW 44,314,920 on the Plaintiff on March 2, 2016, as global income tax of KRW 44,314,920 for the year 201.
The cancellation shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 11, 2011, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director and resigned on September 19, 201, on the corporate register of a stock company (hereinafter “instant corporation”).
B. From July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the pertinent corporation’s income amount of KRW 2,222,143,00, and deemed that the instant corporation underreported the income amount of KRW 2,202,143,00, the said amount was included in the calculation of earnings and disposed of income in proportion to the period of service of the persons registered as the representative director of the instant corporation. Accordingly, on March 2, 2016, the Defendant corrected the Plaintiff’s total income amount of KRW 45,183,987, and issued an additional notice of KRW 44,314,926, excluding the already paid tax amount of KRW 869,061 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, and filed an objection on October 17, 2016 through May 13, 2016.”
Although the Tax Tribunal filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on March 6, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5 and 7, the whole pleadings
purport of this chapter
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
J*** A real management of the instant legal entity, the Plaintiff lent the name of the representative director to **, and was registered as the representative director on the corporate register, and is merely a nominal and formal representative director, and thus, the instant disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff is the representative of the instant legal entity is unlawful and thus, should be revoked as it violates the substance over form principle.
3. The legality of disposition.
A. Relevant legal principles
The purpose of this system is to allow the representative to consider certain facts that can be recognized as such in order to prevent an unfair act under tax laws by a corporation as bonus to a de facto representative regardless of their substance. Thus, even if a person is registered as a representative director in the corporate register of a company, if the company is not actually operated, the company’s missing income shall not be attributed to him/her nor be subject to comprehensive income tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1238, Apr. 12, 198): Provided, That the fact that the fact that the person is a representative director of a corporation who is liable to dispose of income by recognition shall be proved by data, such as the register of corporate register, and the fact that the person is a representative director of a corporation who is not the actual representative director shall be proved by data, such as the register of corporate register, and even if the person is registered as the representative director in the corporate register, the actual situation that is not the representative (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du116, Dec. 23, 2010).
B. Determination
From August 11, 2011 to September 19, 2011, the facts that the plaintiff was registered as representative director on the corporate register of the corporation of this case are as mentioned above. Accordingly, if it is in accordance with the above legal principles, the plaintiff must prove the circumstances that he was not the representative of the corporation of this case. The following facts or circumstances can be acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence No. 1, No. 2-3, No. 1 and No. 6, and all pleadings, which are 2.8,000 shares out of the total number of shares issued by the corporation of this case, and it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff held 24% of the total number of shares issued by the corporation of this case , and * is not the representative director of the corporation of this case before the plaintiff was dismissed as representative director of the corporation of this case * the fact that the plaintiff was registered as representative director of the corporation of this case * the fact that the plaintiff was not the representative of the corporation of this case * the fact that the plaintiff was not the representative of the corporation of this case * in its own name.
C. Sub-committee
Therefore, the disposition of income, which the plaintiff deemed as the representative of the corporation of this case, is legitimate.
The disposition of this case on the basis of this, on which the general income tax is imposed on the plaintiff, is also legitimate.
of this chapter.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.
shall be ruled.