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

Cheong-gu Office

원고에 대하여, 피고 OO세무서장이 2014. 7. 24. 한 2010년 귀속 종합소득세 343,866,670원의 부과처분과 피고 QQ세무서장이 2014. 10. 14. 한 2010년 귀속 종합소득세 가산세 69,492,290원의 부과처분을 각 취소한다.

A. BB (hereinafter “B”) was a corporation established on October 14, 199 for the purpose of housing construction and sales business, etc., and the Plaintiff was registered as a joint representative director of BB with CCC from April 10, 2009 to April 30, 2010.

B. 1) Around 2001, the owner of the land of this case 25,940.8 square meters (hereinafter “the land of this case”) was DDD (hereinafter “DDD”). At the time, the land of this case was at the time, which was at issue, 45 square meters in total, including 325-116 square meters, prior to the disposition of replotting (the change of the name of administrative district to Odong in the Suwon-si District on October 31, 2005) 325-116, and was at the logistics facility, urban planning facilities.

2) BB and EE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EEE”) purchased the down payment of KRW 400,000,000, intermediate payment of KRW 1,700,000, intermediate payment of KRW 1,700,000, KRW 230,000,000, the remainder payment of KRW 2,30,000,000, KRW 230,010,000,000, and the remainder of KRW 2,30,010,00,000, among the instant land from DD around December 201.

3) After that, BB entered into a land sale contract on May 2, 2003 with F, GG, H, H, and J on May 2, 2003 (hereinafter “first sale contract”) with F, H, H, and J, and received KRW 600,000 on the same day the down payment was paid, and thereafter, on January 13, 2004, after receiving the intermediate payment of KRW 660,000,000 on the same day, B terminated the existing land sale contract and entered into a new land sale contract with KRW 3,130,00,000 on the same day.

4) BB entered into a land sale contract (hereinafter “second sale contract”) with K on February 24, 2004 with respect to KRW 300,000 as to the purchase price of the instant land, which was set at KRW 1,50,000,000, and received the down payment of KRW 250,000 on the day.

5) On March 11, 2004, BB entered into a land sale contract (hereinafter “three-party sale contract”) with J as to KRW 1,410,00,000 of the instant land among the instant land, and received 230,000,000 as the down payment on the day, and 300,000,000 as the intermediate payment on April 6, 2004, respectively.

6) In the first installment sale contract, each party’s own share was determined. However, the JJ has a share of 250.5 square meters including 100 square meters of LL, the other investor, and later as an additional investor, MM purchased shares of 100 square meters, RR 20 square meters, and PP 78 square meters, thereby resulting in FF’s 100 square meters, GP 78 square meters, H 75 square meters, H 50 square meters, MM 20 square meters, LL 100 square meters, and JJ has a share of 150.5 square meters.

7) In the case of the three unit sale contract, the J, LL, and S decided to hold shares by investing funds in 1/3 each, but due to the circumstances such as the failure to prepare subsequent purchase price, J withdraws from the internal relationship, and SS only held 40 square shares within the scope of the sale price already paid, and the remaining 260 square shares were held by LL.

8) On the other hand, BB, EE, TT, and DD withdrawn from the position of a joint purchaser on October 20, 2004, and entered into a contract for the buyer’s change to the content that TE is leading to its status. Accordingly, EE’s shares were transferred to TT.

9) Around 2010 when the designation of urban planning facilities for the instant land was abolished and the designation of land transaction permission zone was revoked, PP, GG, F, H, H, H, L, M, M,S, R, K, and J (hereinafter “PP”) decided to pay their intermediate payments and balance to DD directly through TT and receive ownership transfer, as the designation of urban planning facilities for the instant land was revoked and the designation of land transaction permission zone was revoked.

10) However, the PP et al. found that around that time the final shares of the FF are less than 10 square meters, 78 square meters, 75 square meters, H 50 square meters, MP 100, R 20, CR 360, J 150.5 square meters, KS 300, SS 1,273.5 square meters, KS 300 square meters, SS 1,273.5 square meters, and the exclusive use area of the land jointly purchased by BB et al. from DD, but it found that 1,283.5 square meters are less than 1,283.5 square meters from BB from among 2,567 square meters, and that 10 square meters are due to an error in calculation.

11) Furthermore, as seen above, PP et al. had changed the ownership shares after a long period of time following the conclusion of the sale contract, and the sale contract, which was originally prepared with BB, was made during the period designated as the land transaction permission area. As such, there is a concern about the validity of the pertinent land, and thus, a new sale contract is to be made in a lump sum. On March 15, 2010, PP et al. drafted a new sale contract as a sum of the areas (FF 30.58 square meters, PP 257.85 square meters, G247.93 square meters, HH 165.29 square meters, MM 330.58 square meters, MM 330.58 square meters, R6.11 square meters, J. 530.6 square meters, J. 91.6 square meters, and 91.429.294 square meters, and 29.5324.294 square meters,29.24

12) Accordingly, the PP et al. paid to BB an intermediate payment and any balance (including the amount corresponding to 10 square meters additionally allocated) to BB through TT, and subsequently paid to DD on May 11, 2010, the PP et al. completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land in the future of BB on the same day, immediately after completing the registration of ownership transfer according to each unit area.

13) Meanwhile, on April 10, 2014, on or around April 27, 2010, CCC paid KRW 1.4 billion out of the purchase price of KRW 2.3 billion received from PP, etc. to DD as the balance, and was convicted of a crime that "(Seoul Central District Court 2013 High Court 2010OOO) was used and embezzled voluntarily while being kept for BB." (Seoul Central District Court 2013 High Court 2010OOO).

C. 1) After conducting a tax investigation on BB, the head of the Z Tax Office determined and notified the BB of the tax data on July 8, 2010 for the following reasons: (a) on December 14, 2001, the BB acquired 2.2.15 billion won of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land share”); and (b) on April 27, 2010, the BB did not report the transfer of the tax data at KRW 6.525 billion, but did not report the transfer; (c) on July 8, 2014, the BB notified the Plaintiff and the joint representative director of the tax office of KRW 3.41,950,000 (sale 6.559,5959,000,000 won, 2.500,000 won, for each of the above gains on transfer, which is unclear.

2) 이에 따라 피고 OO세무서장은 2014. 7. 24. 원고에 대하여 2010년 귀속 종합소득세 583,268,320원을 결정・고지하였고, 피고 QQ세무서장은 2014. 10. 14. 원고에 대하여 2010년 귀속 종합소득세 가산세 117,803,540원을 결정・고지하였다.

3) The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the Plaintiff. The Tax Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s transfer value (6.52,550,000 won) of the instant land’s share: ① before the Plaintiff takes office as the joint representative director of BB, KRW 1.088,000 won and intermediate payment of KRW 960,000,000,000 paid by BB based on the sales contract between BB and 3; ② KRW 1.40,000,000 paid by PP, etc. to D; ③ KRW 2.18,595,00,000,000, which was 1/2,092,970,000 out of the CCC’s embezzlement amount, should be deemed as the Plaintiff’s recognized bonus amount; and ② the tax base of the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on February 11, 2016; and ② the remainder of the tax base of the Plaintiff’s global income tax amount reverted to B, KRW 200836,200.20.20.

4) 이에 따라 2016. 3. 16. 피고 OO세무서장은 원고에 대한 2010년 귀속 종합소득세를 343,866,670원으로 감액경정하였고, 피고 QQ세무서장은 원고에 대한 2010년 귀속 종합소득세 가산세를 69,492,290원으로 감액경정하였다(이하 당초 처분 중 위와 같이 감액되고 남아 있는 부분을 '이 사건 처분'이라 한다).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-7, Gap evidence 8-1 to 10, Eul evidence 3-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff was formally appointed as the joint representative director of BB for the purpose of securing the claims against BB, and was not involved in the BB’s business or operation, and was not involved in the process of selling and selling the instant land shares or paying the price. It should be deemed that the tax Tribunal’s transfer margin 2.18,595 won should also be deemed as belonging to CCC. The instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

2) The tax base of the instant disposition is calculated by the estimation decision of the head of the Z tax office, and the instant disposition is unlawful unless the Defendants prove the necessity and rationality of the said estimation decision.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the argument No. A-1

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 is not based on the fact that such a representative has generated income, but it aims to allow the representative to consider certain facts that can be recognized as such act in order to prevent an unlawful act under the tax law by a corporation as bonus for 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 does not actually operate the company, even if he is registered as the representative director on the corporate register, he/she is not subject to comprehensive income tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du10461, Dec. 23, 2010; 2008Du10681, Dec. 27, 2008).

B) In this case, the facts that the Plaintiff was registered in the corporate register as joint representative director of BB with CCC from April 10, 2009 to April 30, 2010 are as recognized in the preceding 1. As such, the Plaintiff is presumed to have actually operated BB during the same period. It is difficult for the Plaintiff to recognize that the Plaintiff was not operating BB solely on the evidence Nos. 7 and 10 submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Moreover, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s entry in the evidence Nos. 11-1 through 4, and Nos. 12-1 through 3, which the Defendants determined that the transfer margin of KRW 2.18,595, which the Defendants ultimately become unclear, belongs to CCC, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.

2) Determination as to the assertion No. 2

There is no evidence to deem that the tax base, which forms the basis of the disposition of this case, was calculated by the Z chief of the Z tax office's estimation decision, or that the 'calculated method' was used in the course of the disposition of the defendants. The plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.