Cho High Court Decision 201Do1278 (No. 01, 2011)

illegal to have been filed by a person who is not a party;

Notice of change in income amount does not directly impose income tax on the plaintiff's constructive bonus income, and there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition on behalf of the representative director on behalf of the corporation.

Article 192 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

2011Guhap35064 Notice of change in income amount

United StatesA

Head of Mapo Tax Office

March 28, 2012

April 13, 2012

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On December 16, 2010, the defendant revoked a disposition of notification of change in income amount of KRW 000, which reverts to the plaintiff in 2005.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 15, 2005, BBB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BB”) contracted 00 won (including value added tax, and hereinafter the same shall apply) for the removal and waste disposal work related to the new construction work of DDD apartment located in CC, and paid 000 won on the same day as the construction cost, and included 00 won on December 16, 2005 in deductible expenses at the time of reporting the corporate tax for the business year 2005.

B. On March 2008, the Director of theCC issued a tax investigation against the green environment, and received 000 won for the actual construction cost from the non-party company, and then deposited 000 won for the difference of 00 won (hereinafter “the instant money”) into the Plaintiff’s wife CE bank account, which was the former representative director of the non-party company, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

C. On December 16, 2010, the Defendant issued a notice of change in the amount of income (hereinafter “the notice of change in the amount of income”) to the non-party company and the Plaintiff on December 16, 2010, regarding the non-party company and the Plaintiff as the actual operator of the non-party company, and deeming the person to whom the amount of the instant money belongs, as the Plaintiff was the actual operator of the non-party company.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant asserts that, as the other party to the disposition of this case is the non-party company, the plaintiff is not eligible to be a party.

B. Where a tax authority’s disposition of income and a notice of change in the amount of income is given, a corporation is deemed to have paid the relevant amount to the person to whom the income as stated in the notice was given on the date of receipt of the notice of change in the amount of income, at the same time, tax liability for income tax to be withheld is established, and a corporation which is exempt from withholding is obligated to pay the withheld amount to the head of the competent tax office by the 10th day of the following month. Such notice of change in the amount of income is deemed to be an act of the tax authority directly affecting the tax liability of the corporation which is the source (see Supreme Court Decision 202Du1878, Apr. 20, 206). Since the tax withholding is merely a person who is legally liable for tax payment with respect to the State, and the person who is liable for tax withholding is merely a person who is liable for tax withholding, and the person liable for tax withholding is not liable for tax withholding, but is also liable for tax withholding to pay taxes by the 294th court’s decision.

C. On December 16, 2010, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income, but this merely notified the Plaintiff of the obligation to withhold tax on the income deemed as bonus from the Plaintiff through the notice of change in the amount of income, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly impose income tax on the Plaintiff’s constructive income, and that the representative director was the legal interest to seek the cancellation of the disposition on behalf of the corporation, and the instant lawsuit is unlawful since it was brought by a person who is not a party to the lawsuit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, so it is decided to dismiss it, and it is so decided as per Disposition.