2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

In the first place, the notice of the result of the grievance settlement rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on February 28, 2014 shall be revoked.

Preliminaryly, it is confirmed that the disposition of global income tax imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on March 10, 2008 is null and void.

A. On August 24, 2001, the Plaintiff was registered as a director in the corporate register of AA, and on October 19, 2001, registered as a representative director on October 19, 2001, and was registered as the representative director until the registration of dissolution of the said company was completed.

B. The Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the above company around August 2007, and as a result, disposed of the bonus to the Plaintiff and imposed and notified the Plaintiff’s comprehensive income tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a complaint to the effect that “the Plaintiff was registered as a representative director on the corporate register of the said company, but it did not actually operate the said company, and was registered upon the request of BB, the actual agent, and the representative director was not changed due to the failure to process the administrative affairs of the CCC, which was the same student, and thus, the instant disposition of taxation was unreasonable.”

D. Accordingly, on February 28, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the settlement of grievances, stating that “Inasmuch as it is apparent and objective, as a result of the review of the evidentiary data and the data submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be a representative in the name of the Plaintiff,” and that the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, registered as the representative director under the relevant statutes, cannot be revoked (hereinafter “instant notification”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 5-1 and 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the legitimacy of the primary claim

A. Defendant’s main defense

The plaintiff asserts that the rejection disposition against the request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and its substance are identical, and primarily sought revocation of the notification of this case.

In regard to this, the defendant cannot be viewed as a disposition, so this part of the lawsuit is unlawful, and this part of the lawsuit is justified.

B. Determination

As seen earlier, the instant notice may be acknowledged on February 20, 2014, which is the content that the Plaintiff’s lawful response to the filing of a civil petition against the Defendant regarding the instant disposition was made. According to the above facts of recognition, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s application for grievance filed on February 20, 2014, does not constitute a written request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the instant notice constitutes a notification as an answer to the civil petition. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the instant notice constitutes an administrative disposition, which is an act under the public law of the administrative agency directly affecting the specific rights and obligations of the citizens.

Therefore, the main claim is not subject to an administrative disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, and it is illegal, and the main defense of the defendant pointing this out is justified.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that there is a serious and apparent defect in violation of the substance over form principle in the instant disposition based on the premise that the plaintiff, a representative in the name of the above company, is the actual representative and sought confirmation of invalidity of the said disposition.

B. Determination

1) In an administrative litigation claiming the invalidation of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the confirmation of such invalidity, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the reason why the administrative disposition is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6030, Mar. 10, 1992). In addition, in a case where there are objective circumstances that make it possible to mislead the Plaintiff to be subject to taxation with respect to a certain legal relation or factual relationship which is not subject to taxation, and where it is possible to accurately investigate the factual relation, whether it is subject to taxation or not can be identified as a matter of course, the illegal taxation that misleads the Plaintiff of the fact of taxation cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course, even if the defect is serious (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da24986, Jul. 1

2) We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine.

Even if the Plaintiff is merely a representative in the name of the above company, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was registered as the representative (representative) of the above company on the corporate register, barring any special circumstance. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had no choice but to impose a bonus income disposition on the representative as the above company. Ultimately, insofar as the legal relation or factual relations subject to taxation are accurately examined and the substance is not revealed, there was objective circumstances to mislead the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was merely a representative in the name of the above company, and the fact that the Plaintiff was merely a representative in the name of the above company can only be found only after investigating the factual relations. Thus, even if the Plaintiff was merely a representative in the name of the above company, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition of taxation was null and void per year (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13627, Nov. 28, 197). Moreover, even if examining whether the Plaintiff was the above company’s name or title, it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s testimony as D.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is unlawful, and the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition because it is without merit.