인정상여 과세처분에 대하여 실질대표자가 아니라는 주장의 당부[국패]
Seocho 208west 2106 (Law No. 25, 2008)
The legitimacy of the assertion that the taxation disposition was not a real representative
Even if the plaintiff is a real representative, it does not constitute a person who owns more than 30% of the shares as its officers, and the representative on the registry used the management of the corporate seal imprint, and the employees of the corporation stated that the representative exercised authority over all payments and revenues, and paid the salary and the bonus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff is a real representative subject to disposition by recognizing the plaintiff.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 354,426,740 against the Plaintiff on April 4, 2008 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
1. Circumstances of the disposition;
A. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on the ○ Machinery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○ Machinery”), the Defendant confirmed that the ○ Machinery omitted sales amounting to KRW 881,130,786 in the business year 202. In revising corporate tax for the 2002 business year on the ○ Machinery, the Defendant added the above amount to the gross income and added the value-added tax to the deductible expenses of the 2002 business year, and imposed the corporate tax of KRW 403,623,283 to the ○ Machinery for the business year 2008. On January 3, 2008. On the other hand, on the ground that the Plaintiff deemed the actual representative of the ○ Machinery, and on the ground that the omitted amount was out of the company and it is unclear that the amount of the sales was attributed, the Defendant notified the change in the amount of income to be disposed of by treating the said amount as the 'recognition of the Plaintiff’s income amount.
B. On April 4, 2008, the Defendant issued a correction and notification to the Plaintiff of KRW 354,426,740 as global income tax for the year 2002 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Class A, Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul Nos. 1, 2 (including each number), and 3
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's principal
This case’s disposition against the Plaintiff is unlawful since the Plaintiff was the representative director on the corporate register of ○○ Machinery in 2002 as well as the actual operation of ○○ Machinery.
(b) Related statutes;
The following shall be:
C. Determination
(1) Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9267 of Dec. 30, 2002) and the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17791 of Dec. 5, 2002) recognize a representative due to disposal of income as the representative, not based on the fact that such income accrues from the representative, but on certain facts which can be recognized as such in order to prevent unfair conduct under the tax law by the corporation, the representative of the corporation which is subject to disposal of bonus shall be strictly interpreted on its face as a bonus to the representative without consideration regardless of its substance. In such a case, the representative of the corporation shall be deemed as a representative of the corporation who actually holds more than 3 percent of the total issued and outstanding shares of the corporation, and the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall be deemed as holding more than 10 percent of the total issued and outstanding shares of the corporation in principle if it is unclear or unclear.
(2) The Plaintiff’s title 4, 7, 13, 8, 12, 14, 16, and 10 of the above-mentioned construction machinery (“○○○○○○○”). The Plaintiff’s title 2, which used the above-mentioned construction machinery (“○○○○○”). The Plaintiff’s title 100, 600, 100, 200, 200, 300, 200, 300,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,00,000,00,00,00.
(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is a substantial representative of the instant machines is unlawful.
3. Conclusion
If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.