1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

The Defendant’s global income tax for the Plaintiff on April 19, 2016 12,745.

1. This court's reasoning concerning this part of the reasons for the disposition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion was registered in the corporate register of the non-party company as the representative director, and did not actually operate the non-party company.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is a substantial representative of the non-party company is unlawful.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

(c) Determination 1) The main sentence of Article 106(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act refers to the amount which has not deducted the amount equivalent to the corporate tax from the net income on the balance sheet of the tax base and the corporation determined under Article 104(2).

A) The relevant provision provides that the representative shall be a bonus from the disposal of profits to the representative. In full view of the relevant provisions, the representative must be the de facto representative who operates the company, and even if the company was registered on the corporate register as the representative director, such recognized income shall not be attributed to the representative if there was no actual operation of the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du10461, Dec. 23, 2010). In this case, the person who is registered as the representative director on the corporate register can be presumed to have actually been operating the company, so the representative director on the corporate register must prove that he/she actually failed to operate the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du187, Apr. 24, 2008). The fact that the representative director on the corporate register actually did not actually operate the company shall be proved by the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du187, Apr. 24, 2008).