Suwon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-6067 ( November 23, 2017)

A person who actually participates in the management and actively participates in the decision-making and execution of the management team and exercises the right to supervise the accounts and affairs shall be the representative de facto controlled.

of the executives who actually participate in the decision-making and execution of the management team by participating in the management as a de facto shareholder who owns all outstanding stocks, and who exercise the right to supervise the accounting and affairs shall be the de facto

Article 10 (Disposition of Income)

Seoul High Court 2017Nu88680 and revocation of the detailed global income and disposition

100 20

The head of a tax office

2018.05.03

2018.05.31

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition of the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on May 4, 2015 by the global income tax for the year 2009, global income tax for the year 2010, global income tax for the year 2010, global income tax for the year 2011, and global income tax for the year 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of some contents as follows, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

Parts to be removed or added.

○ The second page " October 25, 2013" in the 9th page shall be " October 15, 2013".

○ The following shall be added to the fourth table below.

D. On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on December 31, 2015, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said request on October 26, 2016.

on the 4th page, "No. 11" is added to the following: "No. 5 to 7".

○ Part 6, No. 8, "This Court" is regarded as " district court".

○, on the 6th page 15, an “smaller” shall be regarded as an “employee”.

○○, Nos. 7, 4, and 5 of the 7th page “The first Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit,” and thus, the instant disposition taken by treating the Plaintiff as the bonus of the Plaintiff is legitimate, and thus, the first Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.