The legitimacy of the assertion that a bonus disposition is improper as a representative in title;

It is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion and witness's testimony that they are not the only representative of the non-party company, and the defendant's disposition is legitimate since there is no clear evidence to prove that the management, business income, or profits of the non-party company

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 66,491,180 against the Plaintiff on December 8, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. On July 5, 200, 200, ○ System Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ System Co., Ltd.”) was established for the purpose of communications corporation, maintenance and repair of communications, installation of computer network facilities business, etc. The Plaintiff was registered as the representative director on the corporate register of the non-party company from July 5, 200 to May 14, 2001.

B. Around June 26, 2006, the head of the ○○ Tax Office, stating that the non-party company received purchase tax invoices of KRW 110,115,000 from ○○○○ Co., Ltd. without real trade during the second period of 2000, and notified the Defendant of the receipt.

C. On December 8, 2006, the Defendant notified the head of ○○ Tax Office of the foregoing taxation data, added the value of supply on the above purchase tax invoice to the deductible expenses, added the above amount to the gross income, and then leaked out of the company, and the ownership of which was unclear, and accordingly, disposed of the bonus of KRW 110,115,00 for the year 200 to the Plaintiff who was the representative director of the non-party company at the time, and imposed the instant disposition imposing KRW 66,449,180 for the global income tax for the year 200 to the Plaintiff.

Each entry of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 1 to 3;

The purport of all pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The fact that the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director on the corporate register of the non-party company was formal by the request of the ○○○○○ who actually operated the non-party company, and the non-party company was merely working as the vice-chief of the non-party company and did not actually run the non-party company. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case against the plaintiff who

(2) Since the expiration date of the exclusion period of global income tax for the year 2000 expires on May 31, 2006, the instant disposition was unlawful on December 8, 2006, which was after the exclusion period expires.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director on the corporate register of the non-party company from July 5, 2000 to May 14, 2001. At that time, ○○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○ was respectively registered. From May 14, 2001, the Plaintiff retired from the representative director, ○○ was registered as the representative director of the non-party company, and the directors were registered as ○○, ○○, and the auditor as ○○, ○○, and the auditor respectively.

(2) At the time of the incorporation of the non-party company, the ○○○ was in charge of the fields of business mainly going to the outside. The Plaintiff was in charge of internal management and technical management, and the ○○○ was in charge of the accounting affairs by holding the position of the director of the accounting division. The ○○ was aware of taking office as the representative director on the ground of excessive personal debt, etc., and accordingly, the Plaintiff, the maximum extension of which was registered as the representative director of the non-party company, was accepted.

(3) The plaintiff was in the position of the Deputy Director, as well as inside and outside of the non-party company, but ○○ was not in the position of the chief or president, and made use of the name of the non-party company stating the position of the chief director.

(4) From July 200 to January 2001, the Plaintiff received benefits of KRW 11,463,190 for the aggregate of KRW 1,461,240 to KRW 1,69,750 per month from the Nonparty Company.

(5) The Plaintiff held 6,00 shares from the time of incorporation of the non-party company to December 31, 200 among the total number of shares issued by the non-party company 20,000 shares, and held 30% shares. The Plaintiff held 10,00 shares until December 31, 201 and held 50% shares (On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s claim as the actual representative of the non-party company continued to hold 20% shares from the time of incorporation of the non-party company). However, it is not confirmed that the relationship of the payment of shares was not confirmed.

(6) A part of the documents for approval of the non-party company, including accounting documents, was signed by the plaintiff in the "president" column, and the documents for internal storage were also signed by the "Deputy General" column.

(7) The account number of a new bank and 240-○-○○○○○○○○○ was indicated as “○○○○○○○○○○ Company” in the bank account.

In the absence of dispute (applicable to recognition), Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 6-1 through 8, Eul evidence 4, 5, Eul evidence 6-1, 2-2, part of Gap evidence 5-1, 2, witness ○○○○, and witness testimony of ○○○○○○, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) Evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4-2, evidence No. 5-1, evidence No. 5-2, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 6-1, and evidence No. 6-1, and witness testimony of the non-party company are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is not the plaintiff but the only representative of the non-party company. Unlike the absence of clear evidence that the non-party company's management, business income, or profit was entirely attributed to the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's profits.

(2) According to the provisions of Article 26-2(1)3 and 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same), a national tax may not be imposed after the expiration of five years from the month when the national tax can be imposed, but if a taxpayer evades, is refunded, or deducted from, a national tax by fraud or other unlawful means, the exclusion period shall be extended for ten years from the date when the national tax can be imposed.

With respect to this case, the fact that the non-party company received the purchase tax invoice of KRW 110,115,000 from the stock company and ○○○○○ without real trade during the second period of 2000 includes the receipt of the purchase tax invoice of KRW 110,115,000. The "Fraud and other unlawful acts" under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes include the act of receiving the non-real-transaction processed tax invoice. Accordingly, the exclusion period is extended to 10 years. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim is rejected as it is without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Related statutes

○ Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8831 of Dec. 31, 2007)

Article 67 Disposal of Income

In filing a report on the customs standards of corporate tax on the income for each business year under the provisions of Article 60 or in determining or revising the corporate tax base under the provisions of Article 66 or 69, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company, internal reserve, etc. according to the person to whom it

○ Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19891 of Feb. 28, 2007)

§ 106. Disposal of income

(1) The amount included in the calculation of earnings under the provisions of Article 67 of the Act shall be disposed of pursuant to the provisions of the following subparagraphs. The same shall also apply to non-profit domestic corporations

1. Where the amount included in the calculation of earnings has clearly leaked out of the company, the dividends, bonuses from the disposition of profits, other income, and other outflow from the company under each of the following items according to the person to whom they accrue: Provided, That where the accrual is unclear, it shall be deemed as accrual to the representative (where the total number of stocks held by an officer who is not a minority shareholder under the provisions of Article 87 (2) and persons in a special relationship under the provisions of paragraph (4) of the same Article is 30% or more of the total number of stocks issued or total investment amount of the relevant corporation and the officer actually controls the operation of the relevant corporation, he shall be deemed the representative, and where a corporation which has been exempted from withholding taxes under the provisions of Article 46 (12) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act reports that there is a separate representative among the officers who are stockholders, etc., the reported person shall be the representative, and where there are 2 or more

(a) Where the person to whom benefits accrue is a stockholder, etc. (excluding a stockholder, etc. who is an executive officer or employee), the dividends to such person;

(b) If the person to whom it belongs is an officer or employee, the bonus to the person to whom it reverts;

(c) Where the person to whom the income accrues is a corporation or an individual operating the business, other outflow from the company: Provided, That such divided profit shall be limited to cases where the income for each business year of a domestic corporation or a domestic business place of a foreign corporation under the provisions of Article 94 of the Act or the business income of a resident or a nonresident under the provisions of

(d) Other income of the person to whom the income belongs, in cases where the person to whom the income accrues falls.

○ Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006)

Article 26-2 (Period for Excluding Assessment of National Tax)

(1) National taxes may not be levied after the expiration of the period set forth in the following subparagraphs: Provided, That where the mutual agreement procedures are in progress under the provisions of a treaty concluded for the prevention of double taxation (hereinafter referred to as the "tax treaty"), Article 25 of the International Tax Adjustment Act shall apply:

1. Where a taxpayer evades a national tax, or receives a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, for ten years from the date on which the national tax is assessable;

2. If a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return within the statutory period, for seven years from the date on which the national tax is assessable;

3. If it does not fall under subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, for five years from the day on which the national tax is assessable; and

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraphs 1 through 3, in cases of the inheritance and gift taxes, it shall be for ten years from the date on which it is assessable: Provided, That it shall be fifteen years from the date on which it is assessable, in any of the following cases:

(a) Where a taxpayer evades inheritance tax or gift tax, or is refunded or deducted by fraudulent or other unlawful means;

(b) Where a return is not filed in accordance with Articles 67 and 68 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; and

(c) Where a person who has filed a return under Articles 67 and 68 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act has made a false or omitted return as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (limited to the portion which is reported falsely or omitted); and