2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On February 28, 191, Nonparty KimA, NewB, JungCC, HanD, and ParkE established ○○○○○○○-dong 60-3, a corporation, and appointed as a representative director, and operated a CATV relay broadcasting business independently in each business area.

B. On October 26, 1991, Nonparty F, EF, EG, and HH also are conducting relay cable broadcasting business in their respective business areas with the trade names of ○○ Cable Broadcasting on October 26, 1991. Around July 1997, Nonparty II, the dueJ, and the dueJ and the due Kim KK and △△△△, respectively, have been conducting relay broadcasting business independently in their respective business areas.

C. On March 23, 1999, KimA, NewBB, PCC, HanD, and ParkE, ○○○ Cable Broadcasting Co., Ltd. and Kim II, EF, EF, Lee J, CourtJ, and HaH and KimK’s △△ Cable Broadcasting agreed to consolidate the project area centered on the ○○ Cable Broadcasting Co., Ltd. on the basis of the ○○○○ Cable Co., Ltd., and all broadcast signal transmissions are exclusively carried out by the ○○ Cable Co., Ltd., and the existing individual business operator decided to carry out business activities under the responsibility of an individual in each business area before the consolidation, and changed the trade name into ○○○○ △△△△△△△ Cable Broadcasting Co.,, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-corporate corporation”) on May 4, 199, as the representative director.

D. On May 4, 200, the representative director of the non-party corporation, who was operated independently by the representative director on May 4, 200, when the non-party corporation was changed into the non-party corporation, operated the broadcast transmission by the non-party corporation at the time of the incorporation of the non-party corporation, and on May 4, 200, the existing individual business entity was the non-party corporation, which had been operated independently by the representative director, without the approval or consent of the non-party corporation, for the overall business activities, such as the profit-making type, cost execution, labor, wages such as employment, and investment in facilities necessary for each branch, etc., and operated independently without the approval or consent of the non-party corporation, and until the subscriber management and network installation, etc. is also performed on May 4, 200, the non-party corporation, the representative director of the non-party corporation, who was the non-party corporation, was also the non-party corporation.

E. The plaintiff and LL also operated a CATV relay broadcasting business independently within each business area and participated in the above corporation on July 1, 199 as the representative director of the non-party corporation under the above business structure. The plaintiff and LL and the representative director of the non-party corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "representative director of the non-party corporation") were the representative of each branch after the registration of the branch was completed. As such, the non-party corporation's representative director return all of the personal business registration and the permission for CATV relay broadcasting business, and the individual separate global income tax imposed on the non-party corporation without paying the individual separate global income tax under the CATV relay Broadcasting Business. The non-party corporation's share ratio is 10% in the number of the authorization for the CATV relay broadcasting business (the non-party corporation's share ratio is 22% in the name of the wife and 14% in total, 10% in total, 14% in total, 2019 and 14% in the list of shareholders (the non-party corporation's representative director).

G. After that, ○○ Central Cable Broadcasting Co., Ltd. and ○○ Cable Co., Ltd. acquired the assets and liabilities of each place of business (including goodwill) operated by the representative director of the non-party corporation, together with KRW 26.15 million (the acquisition amount of ○○ Central Cable Co., Ltd. is KRW 19.23 billion, and the acquisition amount of ○○ Cable Co., Ltd. is KRW 6.982 million, and the ○○ Cable Co., Ltd.’s ○○ Cable Co., Ltd.’s ○○○ Cable Co., Ltd.’)’s ○○ Cable Co., Ltd.’s transfer of assets (hereinafter “transfer of assets”). Specifically, on September 13, 2001, the ○○ Central Cable Co., Ltd. took over the two points from the other branch on April 30, 201, the representative director of the ○○ Branch Co., Ltd., Ltd.’s 1003.

H. When the entire branch was sold as above, the non-party corporation remains as a dormant company without undergoing the liquidation procedure of the Do after reporting the closure of the business on September 30, 2004.

I. On March 16, 2007, the Defendant omitted the filing of corporate tax return while transferring the total assets, etc., and notified the non-party corporation of the correction of corporate tax 10,685,113,580 from 2001 to 10,685,113,580 on March 16, 2007. The Defendant disposed of the sales amount as bonus to the non-party corporation’s representative director and the 13 persons including the Plaintiff, etc., who are the representative director of each of the relevant branch, and notified the change of income amount after giving notice of the change in income amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On May 12, 2007, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 589,481,660

(j) The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on August 1, 2007, but on August 1, 2008.

1. 9. Each of the above appeals was dismissed.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6 through 23, Gap evidence 24-1, 24-2, Gap evidence 25 through 34, 37, 38, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 4-1 through 4, Eul evidence 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

A. The representative director of the non-party corporation, including the plaintiff, agreed to operate the cable broadcasting business lawsuit which he operated individually with the non-party corporation, and agreed to operate the business activities, accounting affairs, human resources, facility management, tax management and other matters under his responsibility for each existing business area prior to integration. The assets and liabilities of each business place separate from the non-party corporation corporation, are owned by the representative director of the non-party corporation, and the non-party corporation is also an individual who owns the assets and liabilities of the non-party corporation, but the disposition of this case was made as a bonus against the plaintiff who received the proceeds of the transfer of the assets of this case by deeming the non-party corporation as the non-party corporation,

B. Even if the subject of the instant transfer of assets is a non-party corporation, the non-party corporation’s representative director, including the Plaintiff, did not receive bonus, which is an earned income from the corporation’s officer’s qualification, from the corporation’s officer’s status, but received the corporation’s own property in the event of liquidation or stock retirement from the corporation’s shareholder status. However, the Defendant was unlawful since the instant disposition that deemed the entire transfer price as a bonus on different premise

3. Related statutes;

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

4. Determination

A. The plaintiff 2. A. Determination on the plaintiff's assertion

Under the principle of no taxation without law, taxation is not allowed, in principle, from the legal relationship existing in reality or legal form. Thus, it is not possible to deny the legal personality of a corporation only for the purpose of tax avoidance and impose tax on the income belonging to the legal entity as the income of an individual who is a member of the corporation. On the contrary, it is not allowed to demand the taxpayer to impose the income belonging to the legal entity as the individual income on the ground that each individual actually engages in business activities.

In this case, in light of the fact that the representative director of the non-party corporation returns all of the broadcasting signal transmissions to the non-party corporation's business registration and authorization for relay cable broadcasting business, and the individual global income tax imposed on the non-party corporation without paying the individual global income tax pursuant to CATV relay broadcasting business, it cannot be deemed that the representative director of the non-party corporation is the sole agent of the non-party corporation when the non-party corporation performs their own business or the non-party corporation's representative director is an association (or association) of the non-party corporation's representative director who is not the corporation.

Ultimately, the representative director of the non-party corporation is merely the representative director of the non-party corporation and the representative director of the branch of the non-party corporation, and all assets of the branch shall belong to the non-party corporation according to the appearance of actual legal relations, and it is reasonable to view that the subject of the transfer of assets of this case, which is the transaction transferring the assets, is also the non-party corporation (However, the transfer of assets of this case was done by the representative director of the non-party corporation who is the non-party corporation and has the right to separate disposal

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2. B

The representative director of the non-party corporation including the plaintiff shall invest the transferred assets in the corporation and take part in the company by acquiring the shares in return. Since the act of transferring the assets in this case is an act of withdrawing from the partnership business relationship and extinguishing the shares corresponding thereto, the transfer of the assets in the above branch is not a bonus, which is earned in the qualification of the officer of the corporation, and the plaintiff's receipt of the price is not a bonus, which is earned in the qualification of the officer of the corporation, but a bonus, which is earned in the qualification of the plaintiff, in the case of liquidation or the retirement of shares in the position of the stockholder of the corporation. Accordingly, in imposing the income tax, the income tax shall be imposed only on the amount calculated by deducting the amount required for the acquisition of shares, etc. (the instant branch investment) from the amount of the distributed residual assets (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du2119, Mar. 24, 201).

However, the Plaintiff’s transfer of assets is merely a receipt of only the transfer price of assets belonging to the place in which the Plaintiff originally invested, and it does not seem to have received the transfer price of other assets increased due to corporate business activities. Therefore, there is no evidence to deem that there exists a tax base amount corresponding to the difference because the transfer price received by the Plaintiff is more than the price originally invested. However, even if the Plaintiff had a domestic business, the instant disposition was unlawful since it considered the entire transfer price received by the Plaintiff as a bonus on the different premise as above, and imposed income tax on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.