명의상 대표자에 불과하다는 주장의 당부[국승]
early 208 Heavy0208 (Law No. 8630, 2008)
The legitimacy of the assertion that it is merely a representative in name.
In full view of the fact that the plaintiff was the president of the non-party company, the plaintiff is a person who actually exercises his authority as the representative director of the non-party company and actually participated in the management of the non-party company and is subject to the disposition.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
쇠鹬 쇠지鹬 3000 쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지 3000
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 27,88,160 on the Plaintiff on January 14, 2008 shall be revoked.
쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지지 3000
1. Details of disposition;
A. (State)AAAA (hereinafter “BB”) completed the registration of incorporation on March 8, 200, and the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director from January 31, 2002 to April 23, 2002 on the corporate register.
B. The head of the Dobong Tax Office imposed corporate tax by adding the non-party company’s value of 163,659,000 won (CC 83,050,000 + DDDD corporation 80,609,000) processed and purchased during the business year 2002 to the non-party company’s deductible expenses, while disposing of KRW 118,015,733 in proportion to the period of service for the plaintiff, the representative during the above taxable period, as bonus, and notified changes in the amount of income.
C. On January 14, 2008, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of taxation data from the head of the Dobong-gu Tax Office, who did not voluntarily file and pay the global income tax, imposed the instant disposition imposing the global income tax of KRW 27,888,160 on the Plaintiff in 202.
D. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Director of the Central Tax Office on April 10, 2008, but the objection was dismissed on December 18, 2008. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 23, 2009, but the appeal was dismissed on April 27, 2010.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 3, 3, 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
Around January 2002, the Plaintiff-type ChoF entered into a contract to acquire the non-party company from the actual owner KimGGG of the non-party company, but waived acceptance due to the shortage of funds. In the process, the Plaintiff was registered in the non-party company as a representative director to perform external duties as a role for planning and implementing cultural contents, such as KTF, in order to perform external duties. However, the Plaintiff was merely a representative in the name of the non-party company, which is not actually operated, and KimGG operated the non-party company.
B. Determination
A person who actually exercises the authority as a representative director and actually takes part in the management shall be deemed a representative subject to disposition by recognizing the representative, and may not be deemed a nominal representative director solely on the ground that the controlling shareholder exists (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du8030, Jan. 18, 2008).
In this case, even if the plaintiff was registered as the representative director on January 31, 2002 in the process of acquiring the non-party company of ChoF and resigned from the office of representative director on April 23, 2002, the plaintiff had been registered as the representative director on April 23, 2002, the following facts and circumstances are acknowledged as follows: ① the plaintiff was appointed as the representative director to perform external affairs as the role in planning and implementing cultural contents such as KTF, etc. ② the plaintiff was in the office of representative director; ② the plaintiff was in the office of representative director; ③ the plaintiff was in the office of representative director; ③ the plaintiff was in the office of representative director; ③ the plaintiff was in the office of representative director; the plaintiff was in the office of the non-party company; the plaintiff was actually exercising the authority as representative director of the non-party company and actually involved in the management of the non-party company; and even if the non-party company was a controlling stockholder or the non-party company exercised a certain portion of management, it cannot be viewed otherwise.
The fact that the plaintiff is merely a representative in the name of the plaintiff must be proved by the plaintiff, and it is not sufficient to recognize the evidence of No. 2-2, No. 5-1, and No. 6-1 through No. 3 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
3. Conclusion
Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.