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

A. The Plaintiff was the representative director of the BB Nam Daegu-gu Co., Ltd. (established on February 27, 2003, which was established on March 31, 2005, hereinafter referred to as 'non-party company') in Daegu-gu AA9 Dong 563-8.

B. The director of the Namgu Tax Office having jurisdiction over the location of the non-party company notified the non-party company of the tax amount of KRW 195,847,30 (the sales amount of KRW 101,685,400 on October 2004 + the sales amount of KRW 94,161,90 on November 1, 2004; hereinafter referred to as the "amount omitted in sales") and corrected the corporate tax for the year 26,750,760 on August 1, 2006, on the ground that the non-party company omitted the return of the supply amount of agency fees that the non-party company received from the Nam Daegu Service Center for the business year 2004 (the non-party company did not have been notified of the amount of corporate tax which was substantially disposed of as deficit in the status of business closure).

C. In addition, on August 1, 2006, the director of the Nam Daegu District Tax Office notified the Plaintiff, who is the representative director of the non-party company, of the total of KRW 195,847,30 and value-added tax of KRW 19,584,730, the total of KRW 195,847,30 and value-added tax of KRW 19,584,730, and notified the change in the amount of income, and notified the Defendant of the tax data having jurisdiction over

D. After that, the Plaintiff did not make a revised return on global income tax and a voluntary payment in accordance with the notice of the above change in the amount of income, the Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff on December 6, 2006, to notify the Plaintiff of KRW 82,337,270 of global income tax for the year 2004 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on the disposition of this case, but on September 20, 2007, the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal. On September 20, 2007, the plaintiff was served with the above decision on the 27th of the same month, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on December 18, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Eul evidence 2-1-3, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 5-1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On September 30, 2004, before the omission in the sales amount of this case occurred, the Plaintiff retired from office as the representative director of the non-party company, and since October 1, 2004, the formerCC, a director of the non-party company, and YD, was appointed as the joint representative director of the non-party company and actually operated the non-party company. Thus, the disposition of this case, which the Plaintiff deemed as the representative director of the non-party company and imposed the bonus disposal amount as the income of the non-party

(2) At the time of Non-Party Company’s declaration of the corporate tax base in 2004, the non-party Company did not engage in the business as deductible expenses by omitting entry of KRW 134,545,00 for employees’ special bonus, and the disposition of this case without setting the corporate tax base in 2004 is unlawful, since the non-party Company transferred all of the materials and employees, etc. from the non-party Company’s non-party Company’s company’s business to BB, with BB, with the material purchase, etc. and processed at credit from the Southern Daegu Service Center, and with the material purchase, etc., from among the omitted sales of this case.

(3) The amount of omission in sales was merely included in the amount of KRW 487,90,050 in the amount of KRW 487,90,050 on the balance sheet of 2004 due to the fault in accounting, and there was no omission in the sales of the non-party company. Thus, the disposition of this case on the premise that the above omission in sales was made

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The assertion of violation of substance over form principle

(A) If a corporation fails to enter its sales in the account book despite the fact of sales, the total amount omitted in sales, including the cost amount, shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the company, except in extenuating circumstances. The revenue of the corporation out of the company shall be disposed of as a bonus for the representative, unless it is clear that the revenue of the corporation is attributed to it. In such a case, the omitted amount of sales is not leaked out of the company or it is obvious that it is attributed to it. The special circumstance to view

(B) In addition, the recognition contribution system for the representative under Article 106 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is not based on the facts that such income has accrued to the representative, but it is intended to have certain facts recognized as such in order to prevent an unfair act under tax law by a corporation be considered as a bonus for a unconditional representative regardless of their substance. The representative is substantially a representative who operates the company. Thus, even if the company was registered as the representative director on the corporate register, if the company is not actually operated, it cannot be imposed on the representative, and the person who is registered as the representative director on the corporate register can be presumed to actually operate the company. Thus, the representative director on the corporate register must prove that the representative director has actually failed to operate the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6747, Aug. 14, 1992).

(C) After the Plaintiff resigned from the office of representative on September 30, 2004, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the formerCC and DaD were actually operating as the representative director of the non-party company from October 1, 2004 to October 1, 2004. Rather, according to the statements in subparagraphs 5-2 and 3-2 and 5-3, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the non-party company on the corporate register from March 2003 to March 2005. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

(2) The omission of special bonus entry and the claim for deduction of the amount of the material transferred

The statements of Gap evidence 2-5, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 4-7 are insufficient to recognize that the non-party company paid 134,545,00 won for the above special bonus or omitted bookkeeping of the amount of special bonus and credit material purchase-related expenses, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(3) Claim for the deduction of the amount of provisional deposit

The statements in Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and 5-7 are insufficient to recognize that the omitted amount of the sales of this case was included in the provisional receipts on the balance sheet of 2004 of the non-party company as a mere loss of accounting, and there is no other evidence to support that the above provisional receipts were caused by the omitted amount of the sales of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the disposition of this case that the defendant reported 195,847,300 won as the amount of outflow from the company for which its attribution is unclear is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of the disposition of this case is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.