With respect to the plaintiff, the head of the defendant ○○ Tax Office's global income tax***,**,**,**,** in the disposition of imposition of KRW ***,*,**,**, the part in excess of KRW *,**, the additional global income tax**,*,*, the additional tax of 2010 on October 14, 2014 imposed by the head of the defendant ○○ Tax Office*,**,**,** in the disposition of imposition of KRW **,***,*** in the disposition of imposition of KRW ***.***.**

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff takes part in the joint representative director of the city of △△△△ in order to secure the claim for the land of △△△, but did not take part in the business or operation of the city of △△△△, and did not participate in the sale or purchase of the instant land in the process of making the purchase or payment of the shares of △△△△, thereby imposing a comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff. In addition, the land of △△△△△ was already paid KRW 2,830,000 out of the transfer price of the instant land to the Plaintiff before the Plaintiff takes part in the joint representative director, and the land of △△△△△△△△△△△ was already paid to the Plaintiff, and the land of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, after the Plaintiff takes part in the joint representative director, the remaining transfer price of 3,695,950,000 won from June 1, 209 to April 12, 2010 (the transfer price of 6,9500,00000 won,000 won).

2) 이 사건 처분의 과세표준은 ■■■세무서장의 추계결정에 의해 산출된 것인바, 피고들이 위 추계결정의 필요성과 합리성을 증명하지 못하는 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

B. Relevant statutes

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) Article 106(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26981, Feb. 12, 2016; hereinafter the same) provides that the system does not provide the representative with the basis of the fact that such income has accrued to the representative, but provides that certain facts, which can be recognized as such act in order to prevent any unlawful act under tax law by the corporation, shall be deemed as bonus to a non-conditional representative regardless of substance. The representative is substantially operating the company, and even if he is registered as the representative director on the corporate register, if he/she does not actually operate the company, even if he/she is registered as the representative director on the corporate register, he/she does not belong to the company and cannot impose comprehensive income tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du10461, Dec. 23, 2010). However, since the representative on the corporate register can be presumed as the representative director on the corporate register, the proviso to Article 208(1) of the Corporate Tax Act does not stipulate.

나) 위와 같은 법리에 의하면, 원고는 △△△과 함께 ☆☆종건의 공동대표이사로 등재되어 있던 2009. 4. 10.부터 2010. 4. 30.까지 ☆☆종건을 실질적으로 운영하였던 것으로 추정되는바, 원고가 제출한 갑7, 10, 13 내지 21, 33 내지 39호증(가지번호 있는 것은 가지번호 포함, 이하 같다)의 각 기재만으로는 원고가 실질적으로 ☆☆종건을 운영하지 아니하였다고 단정하기 어렵고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 오히려 갑22 내지 25호증, 을7호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 2009. 2.경 이 사건 토지에 대한 토지거래허가구역 지정이 해제되고 1번 내지 3번 분양계약에 따른 잔금 지급이 가시화되기 시작하자 ☆☆종건이 지급받을 잔금으로 ☆☆종건에 대한 자신의 채권 등을 변제받기 위하여 ☆☆종건의 공동대표이사로 취임한 사실, 그 후 ☆☆종건과 ※※※ 등은 이 사건 토지 지분 등이 경매로 처분될 위험에 처하자(수원지방법원 2009타경43323호) 이 사건 토지 중 5,280평을 추가로 매수한 수 이를 처분한 대금등으로 경매를 취소시킬 계획을 세웠는데, 위 추가 매수 당사자 중 주식회사 ◇◇◇물류는 원고가 조카 ⓔⓔⓔ과 설립하여 원고가 그 공동대표이사였으며, 주식회사 ▼▼물류는 원고에계 투자관계를 일임하여 왔던 ☉☉☉이 동대표이사였던 사실 등 원고가 ☆☆종건의 이 사건 토지 관련 사업에 실질적으로 관여하였던 것으로 보이는 정황들이 인정되므로, 원고가 공동대표이사로서 ☆☆종건을 실질적으로 운영하지 아니하였다는 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

C) Meanwhile, the Tax Tribunal recognized the down payment and intermediate payment that the Plaintiff received pursuant to the sales contract Nos. 1 through 3 as KRW 2,040,00,000 (contract deposit of KRW 1,080,000 + intermediate payment of KRW 960,00,000) prior to the Plaintiff’s appointment as the joint representative director of the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, and the instant disposition was made pursuant to the above acknowledged contents by the Tax Tribunal, but the overall purport of the pleadings was 11,26,27, and 28. Furthermore, in full view of the purport of the arguments, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 10,00,00,000, KRW 150,000, KRW 150,000, KRW 100,000, KRW 1000, KRW 3000, KRW 300,000, KRW 400, May 10, 2005.

이에 기하여 원고가 ☆☆종건의 공동대표이사로 등기되어 있던 기간 중 이 사건 토지 지분의 양도대금 중 귀속 불명 소득을 계산하면 1,395,950,000원(= 이 사건 토지 지분의 양도대금 6,525,950,000원 - 원고의 공동대표이사 취임 전 기 지급된 계약금과 중도금 2,830,000,000원 - ☺☺☺ 등이 ◎◎물류센타에 지급한 1,400,000,000원 -△△△의 횡령금액 900,000,000원)이 되는 한편 갑11, 12, 36 내지 39호증의 각 기재만으로는 위 귀속 불명 소득이 모두 △△△에게 귀속되었다고 보기 어렵고 달리 그 귀속관계를 확인할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 결국 그 중 원고에게 귀속되어야 할 부분은 697,975,000원(= 1,395,950,000원 ÷ 2)으로 산정된다. 따라서 원고의 이 부분 주장은 위 인정 범위 내에서 이유 있다.

D) Determination of the legality of a disposition in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition is based on whether it exceeds a legitimate tax amount. The parties concerned may submit arguments and materials supporting the objective tax base and tax amount until the closing of arguments in the fact-finding court. When a legitimate tax amount is calculated based on such materials, only the portion exceeding the legitimate tax amount should be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du8930, Jun. 12, 2001).

If a reasonable tax amount is calculated with the portion of income, of which ownership is unclear to the Plaintiff as KRW 697,975,00, the portion of which is to be reverted to the Plaintiff, as indicated in the attached Table of Political Party Tax, is KRW 212,530,820 for global income tax for 2010 and KRW 42,98,710 for additional tax for 42,98,710 for the global income tax for 2010 as indicated in the attached Table of Political Party Tax Table, and the amount exceeding KRW 212,530,820 for global income tax for 20,000 for 203,86,670 for the imposition of global income tax for 2010 as of July 24, 2014 and the amount exceeding KRW 69,492,290 for global income tax for 2010 for global income tax for 20,014 should be revoked.

2) Judgment on the second argument

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above recognized scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the part against the plaintiff falling under the above recognized scope among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the above cited part among the disposition of this case is revoked, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit.