The representative of a corporation that is subject to bonus disposal should be interpreted strictly.

A person who is registered as a representative on the corporate register can be presumed to be actually operating the company, so the representative on the corporate register must prove the fact that the company was actually not operating the company by the representative on the corporate register.

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

2014 Gohap6457 Revocation of the imposition of global income tax

Further to the amount of bonus income disposition, KRW 52,713,518 of the global income tax for the year 2010 shall be corrected and notified;

was made.

C. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the imposition of global income tax, and filed an objection on March 2014.

10. Upon receipt of a decision to dismiss, and thereafter, a request for examination was filed with the National Tax Service, but such decision to dismiss on July 11, 2014.

was received.

D. After that, the Defendant corrected the amount of the disposal to KRW 119,395,146 by reducing the amount of the disposal to 119,39,146:

On June 23, 2015, the integrated income tax for the plaintiff 2010 on June 23, 2015 shall be re-issued to KRW 36,752,190.

J. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition” in the disposition dated December 2, 2013;

A total of 8,599,900 won due to the delay in payment of the above global income tax (=one additional charge 1,102,560)

The increased 7,497,340 won was notified.

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, Gap's No. 4, 5, 8, Eul's No. 1 through 5, and 7, each statement, pleading

The purport of the whole

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit pertaining to the claim for revocation of additional dues is legitimate

We examine ex officio the validity of the part concerning the claim for revocation of the additional dues among the lawsuits in this case.

The additional dues or increased additional dues prescribed in Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act shall be paid by the payment deadline.

as a matter of course occurs under the provisions of law without a final procedure of the taxation authority;

The notification of additional charges or increased additional charges can not be considered as a disposition that is subject to appeal litigation (act of representation).

See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da15482 Decided June 10, 2005, etc.

Therefore, among the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s delay in the payment of global income tax to the Plaintiff on June 23, 2015

The part seeking the revocation of the action that notified the aggregate of 8,599,900 won is subject to an appeal litigation.

This disposition is unlawful as it does not exist.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff was requested by the shareholders of the corporation of this case to become a representative director under the name of the representative director.

Only lent the name, but not the substantial representative of the legal entity of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff

This disposition based on the premise that it is a substantial representative of a corporation is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The system of recognition of the representative under the Corporate Tax Act is the fact that such income has been generated to the representative.

to prevent unfair practices under tax laws by corporations, not based on the basis of this Act;

under section 35 of the title of such corporation, regardless of

(b) the subject matter of the bonus disposition, in such a case,

The representative of this legal entity shall be interpreted strictly (Supreme Court Decision 8 March 8, 1994).

person registered as a representative director in the corporate register of a company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1176, etc.),

(1) If the corporation does not actually operate the corporation, the income of which the corporation is not known to him;

No comprehensive income tax shall be levied on any person who is registered as the representative director in the corporate register.

As such, the representative on the corporate register may be presumed to have been operating the company.

that the corporation has not been actually operated by the corporation is proved by the party asserting that the

must be (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du18116, Dec. 23, 2010).

Therefore, a nominal representative who was not involved in the management of the corporation of this case.

Evidence Nos. 3, 6, 7, and 9, and Evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 2, 3, 6, 8, and 10

(including each number) each entry and the whole purport of the pleading shall be as follows:

on July 7, 2005, the Plaintiff was appointed to the representative director immediately after the establishment of the instant corporation.

was registered as the representative director of the corporation of this case for about eight years until the corporation of this case was dissolved.

c) Changes in the history of the change of the business entity of the corporation of this case, such as the change of the representative, etc.

(2) A certificate of corporate registration submitted at the time of application for business registration of the corporation of this case

The plaintiff shall be the representative director, and the real estate lease contract shall state the plaintiff as the lessee.

(3) White State ○, the largest shareholder (41%) of the instant corporation, is the Plaintiff’s penal person.

4. The plaintiff was employed in the ordinary day of the company, and the plaintiff was employed in the ordinary day of the company, but the ordinary day of the company

백국○이 그 대표자이고, 사업장 소재지는 'CCC시 @@@구 @@@면 맹리 267-15, 1층'으

The type of business is consistent with the location of the head office of the corporation of this case, and the type of business is also a synthetic resin manufacturing business.

In light of the same type of business as that of a corporation, the plaintiff at least with the above white country ○.

and evidence Nos. 2, 6, 7, and 9 (each number)

(including) Each statement alone that the Plaintiff is only a nominal representative director of the instant corporation.

there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

If so, the part of the claim for cancellation of the surcharge is unlawful and thus, it is dismissed.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

(c)

00AA

CCC Head of the tax office

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for revocation of the surcharge is dismissed. 2. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of KRW *** is revoked on December 2, 2013 by the former Young-gu Defendant on global income tax, etc. for the year 2010 that he/she paid to the Plaintiff on December 2, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. CCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant corporation”) is a corporation established on July 4, 2005 for the purpose of developing, manufacturing, and selling biochemical resin, and the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the instant corporation from July 7, 2005 to December 3, 2013, which is the date of the registration of the instant corporation, from July 3, 2013.

B. In determining the corporate tax for the business year 2010 of the instant corporation, the director of the CCC (hereinafter referred to as “instant bonus income disposition”) at the time of the determination of the corporate tax for the business year 2010, the sum of KRW 148,041,610, and the sum of KRW 10,93,061 in the amount equivalent to the interest accrued monthly paid by the representative director on the settlement of accounts for the business year 2009, 159,034,671 as bonus to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff’s bonus disposition”). On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff’s earned income