2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of lawsuit.

(a) BB (hereinafter referred to as “LB”) is a company established on November 19, 2004 for the purpose of software development and supply services;

B. BB received three copies of the tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) which is the aggregate of the supply value from theCC Microsystem Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CCC”) within the second 2007 taxable period, and then deducted the above supply value as the input tax amount at the time of filing the return of value-added tax for the second 2007 period, and included it as the sales cost for the 2007 business year (foreign commercial purchase amount). In addition, BB deposited 000 won (hereinafter “instant payment amount”) with theCC Microsystem account on January 8, 2008, and BB closed its business on March 12, 2009, considering that the amount was 00 won as the bonus tax invoice for the year 200,000, and that was 200,000 won as the bonus income amount for the 200th 20,000,0000,000 won as the bonus income amount for the 20th 20,000.

D. Accordingly, on August 18, 201, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of the Plaintiff, the global income tax of 000 won for the year 2008 (h) and the local income tax of 000 won for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing local income tax”). E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on March 9, 201 after filing an objection on November 10, 201, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 10, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence l through 4, Eul evidence l through 3, and 9 (if any, including a natural disaster), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for revocation of imposition of local income tax of this case

Ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing local income tax of this case among the lawsuits in this case. According to Article 177-4, 11, 2, and 5 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Local Tax Act"), and resident tax to be imposed (limited to the current local income tax) is to be paid to the head of the Si/Gun (in the case of the Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities, the head of the Gu, and the same shall apply hereinafter) having jurisdiction over the place for payment of income tax, and even if the head of the tax office collects income tax by the method of imposition and notification under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act, it shall be deemed that the head of the Si/Gun concerned imposes and notifies the resident tax to be imposed at the same time and notified to the head of the Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the place for tax payment of the plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du147, Feb. 25, 2014).

3. Determination on the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

[Smark] As above, CC Microsystem Business: (a) purchased tax invoices from DDDC (State) on the basis of the supply value of 000 won; (b) issued tax invoices on the PPP; (c) issued tax invoices on sales of 000 won; (d) deposit of 000 won (supply price + tax amount of 0000 won + tax amount of 0000 won) at the level of 20% of the supply value from BBC; and (b) deposit of 20000 won (supply price + tax amount of 0000 won + tax amount of 000 won) with the bonus payment amount of 000 won in total after deducting transaction marginal profit amount of 000 won in the BCC; and (b) deposit of the BCC account into the BCC account can not be made out of the BCC account, i.e., the remainder of the supply price after deducting 000 won from the bonus payment amount of 000 billion won + tax amount of 000.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form. The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

C. Determination

1) On each entry in Gap, 6 through 8 evidence 1, and 4 to 8, the following facts may be recognized if the whole purport of the pleading is added:

① DDCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “EE”) is a corporation established on February 8, 200 for the purpose of corporate computer consulting business, and the EEE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “EEE”) was established on July 15, 200 for the purpose of software-related development and service business, and the Plaintiff is the representative director of the EE Co., Ltd. and the FF, who is the mother company of OO and DDCC, is the representative director of DDCC. ② The FF owns BB shares 6,999 shares (69.9%), and the FF made it available to the Plaintiff on November 8, 200 for the purpose that the Plaintiff is holding and delivered shares in the name of 6,09,00 shares, and the FF will keep the shares in the name of the Plaintiff as the shareholder and deliver them in the form of BDCC.

Third, around June 2010, the plaintiff was found to have exercised all substantial rights as the EE and BB's representative in connection with the tax invoice of this case, and BB was found to have been 10. The plaintiff was issued 20.00, 200, 2000, 300, 2000, 200, 200, 206, 200, 300, 206, 206, 201, 30, 200, 206, 30, 200, 206, 200, 206, 200, 206, 200, 206, 200, 206, 30,000,000, 20,000,00,000,000,00,000,00,00,000.

⑤ KoreaOO was registered on the register from October 16, 2007 to BB representative director, and was registered on the register as representative director at the Plaintiff’s request in relation to the tax invoice in this case, but it was found that it was actually in charge of strategic consulting services, and that it was exclusively in charge of tax accounting management such as fund management and issuance of tax invoices in the EE business management team, and was subject to the prosecution’s non-suspect disposition as to the violation of the Act on Punishment of Tax Offenses.

2) Article 106(1) proviso of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302, Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act") provides that "If it is clear that the amount was out of the company in determining or revising the corporate tax base, it shall be deemed that it was reverted to the representative." Thus, the representative bonus system is not based on the fact that such income was generated to the representative, but it is intended to consider the specific fact that it is recognized as such act to prevent unfair conduct under the tax law by the corporation as a bonus to the representative regardless of its substance, so the representative is not obligated to pay the income tax regardless of whether it actually reverts to him or her, unless it proves that the amount was included in the gross income of the company, and it is not clear whether it actually reverts to him or her (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da49789, Sept. 18, 200).

Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that if the ownership of the amount of outflow from the company is unclear, it shall be deemed that it belongs to the representative, and if an officer, such as a shareholder, who is not a minority shareholder, and a person with a special relationship, holds at least 30/100 of the total number of outstanding shares or total amount of investment in the corporation, such officer shall be the representative, and if such officer actually controls the operation of the corporation, he/she shall be deemed the representative, and if he/she is not the representative, he/she shall be deemed the representative.On the other hand, when comprehensively considering Articles 42 (1) and 43 (6) 1 through 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, he/she shall be deemed that the other party is a shareholder, member, or investor, and the officer who actually participates in the management and actually exercises his/her right to manage the company's stocks, the plaintiff shall be deemed to be the representative of the EBB under the proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

Therefore, among the lawsuit in this case, the part that seeks revocation of imposition of local income tax for 2008 is illegal and dismissed, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are not attributable, and it is dismissed as per Disposition.