2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

"A. BBBB (hereinafter "non-party company") was established on October 17, 200 for the purpose of housing construction business, etc., and on the corporate register on December 1, 2006, the registration of the principal office transfer and the registration of the representative director of the plaintiff was completed on December 1, 2006 at OO-Gu OCC 414-10 CCC 902. However, on July 9, 2008, the director of the tax office notified the defendant of the data on taxation as the bonus belonging to the plaintiff registered as the representative director of the non-party company in 2007.

C. On December 14, 2011, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax OOO on December 14, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 8, 2012, but was dismissed on May 3, 2012.

[Based on Recognition] The whole purport of the arguments and arguments described in Gap, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, three, and four

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the plaintiff is registered on the corporate register as the representative director of the non-party company, it was arbitrarily registered by DDD, which was never involved in the operation of the non-party company, and DD was actually operated by the non-party company, so the disposition of this case that deemed the plaintiff as the representative of the non-party company is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

"1) On February 10, 2001, DNA established EEEE (hereinafter referred to as the "EEEE") and registered the FF as the representative director on its corporate register, and substantially operated EEE. (2) DE takes over the non-party company of the non-party company of the non-party company, around 2006, by taking over the non-party company of the non-party company of the non-party company. The plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the non-party company with the personal seal impression and personal seal impression affixed from the plaintiff who was known to the same senior person as the representative director.

3) They indicate that the non-party company’s shares in the register of shareholders in 2006 and 2007 are owned by the plaintiff 20,000 shares in the register of shareholders in the non-party company, that the plaintiff 10,000 shares in the ratio of 10,000 shares in the ratio of H (20%), HH 10,000 shares in the ratio of 10,000 shares (18%) and the JJ 1,000 shares (2%) in the ratio of 1,00 shares in the register of shareholders in the non-party company.

4) The earned income statement of the non-party company stated in the statement of earned income in 2006 that the non-party company paid each OOO source to the plaintiff, and DD to the plaintiff and DD in 2007.

5) DD is a high-class engineer in the field of construction, such as having a building engineer's license, and engaged in construction business for about twenty years. Meanwhile, on November 2, 2002, the Plaintiff was registered as a real estate rental business operator on the OOO-Gu O3 Dong 329-16 at the time of OO-si, one's domicile, and did not work in the non-party company.

"6) On November 2008, KK, LL, M, and NN working in the non-party company submitted a petition to the Southern District Office of Seoul Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, that the respondent was not paid wages from the non-party company, and the written statement submitted by MM and LL are stated that the representative of the non-party company in the name of the plaintiff or the actual representative of the non-party company did not have any fact that the plaintiff or the actual representative was involved in the management of the company. After that time, K, etc. submitted a written withdrawal to the effect that the plaintiff does not want criminal punishment of DD because it actively cooperates with the non-party company around February 2009," [Recognizing the ground for recognition], Gap 1, and 3, 5 through 8, 11 (including numbers, and hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul 1, 6, 7, and 8 of the witness testimony in the entire purport of the pleading and the entire testimony of MM between the witness and the witness.

D. Determination

1) Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that in determining or correcting the corporate tax base, where it is clear that the amount included in the calculation of gross income has been leaked out of the company, it shall be bonus, dividends, other income, and other outflow from the disposal of profits according to the person to whom the income belongs, and where it is unclear, it shall be deemed that it has been reverted to the representative. In full view of the relevant provisions, the representative shall be a de facto representative operating the company, and even if the company was registered on the corporate register as the representative of the company, such recognized income shall not be attributed to the representative (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du10461, Dec. 23, 2010).

"2) In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff, who has no experience in the construction field, actually operated the non-party company, who is engaged in the construction business, and there is no time to work in the non-party company. ② Rather, it is natural to view that KR who has worked for about 20 years in the construction business was in the non-party company and actually operated the non-party company. ③ KR, who has worked for the non-party company, stated that KR, in the name of the non-party company, did not have any fact that the plaintiff or the actual representative was involved in the management of the company. ③ When comprehensively considering the fact that the plaintiff or the representative of the non-party company in the name of the non-party company was submitted D with the respondent as D, the representative of the non-party company in the remaining site of the Seoul Regional Labor Agency, actually operated the non-party company, and the plaintiff did not actually operated the non-party company in the corporate register, and the plaintiff did not have any actual operation of the non-party company."

The claim of this case is justified and accepted.