The period recorded in the certified copy of the register shall be deemed to be the representative's period of service and shall be disposed of.

After being detained by the representative of the victim countermeasures council, the estimated income for the period when the plaintiff, which is the representative of the corporation register, is recorded as the representative of the corporation, will result in the liability for global income tax.

Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the representative bonus disposal method

1. The part of the Defendant’s imposition disposition of global income tax of KRW 535,221,230 against the Plaintiff on November 4, 2005, which exceeds KRW 140,419,779, among the imposition disposition of global income tax of KRW 535,221,230 for the Plaintiff

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. A quarter of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 535,221,230 on November 4, 2005 against the Plaintiff on November 4, 2005 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 8, 2002, 2002, ○○○○○○○ (Before the change on May 28, 2002: ○○○○○, Inc., Ltd., hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) was established on February 8, 200 and operated multi-stage sales business, etc., and closed on June 30 of the same year.

B. The non-party company was registered as the representative director from February 8, 2002 to May 28, 2002, the date of incorporation of the non-party company from June 14 to June 30 of the same year, and from May 28, 2002 to June 14 of the same year, the date of closure, and from May 28, 200 to June 14 of the same year.

C. As the non-party company did not report corporate tax, the head of the competent ○○ Tax Office, when he estimated corporate tax based on standard expense rate on February 2004, deemed 2,381,39,930 won omitted as bonus for the gambling ○○ as the representative director, and notified the head of the competent ○○ Tax Office thereof. On August 10, 200 of the same year, the head of the competent ○○ Tax Office decided and notified the global income tax of KRW 1,058,924,510 for the global income tax of KRW 202. The head of the competent ○ Tax Office requested a review of national tax, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, on March 24, 2005, the head of the competent ○○ Tax Office, on the ground that the non-party company was the actual representative of the non-party company from April 30, 2002, closed the business from June 30, 2002.

D. After that, on Nov. 4, 2005, the Defendant: (a) on May 1, 2002, from May 1, 2002 to June 30 of the same year, the day following the date on which Park○ was detained among the omitted portion of the income amount of the non-party company; (b) on which KRW 1,122,829,675 was deemed to have accrued to the Plaintiff; and (c) rendered the instant disposition that determined and notified KRW 535,221,230 of the global income tax for 202.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-2, Evidence No. 6, Evidence No. 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of legality of disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Until the normalization of the non-party company, the plaintiff was registered as a representative director in the form of a proposal that the plaintiff, who is the chairperson of the victim countermeasure council, takes charge of the representative director in the form of the non-party company, was registered as a representative director in the form of the non-party company, and the non-party company was actually managed or was involved in its operation. The disposition of this case based on

(2) The instant disposition is unlawful in that it did not clearly specify the elements of taxation, such as sales and earnings of the non-party company.

(b) Related statutes;

【National Tax Basic Act

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

(1) If the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and a person to whom such ownership belongs exists, the tax-related Acts shall apply to such person to whom such person actually belongs as a taxpayer.

m. Corporate Tax Act

Article 67 Disposal of Income

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

(1) Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17791 of Dec. 5, 2002)

§ 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 with 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 concerned corporation and the officer actually controls the operation of the 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, the reported person shall be the representative, and

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

(1) Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 281 on October 28, 2002)

54 Representative bonus disposal method

In the application of the proviso to Article 106 (1) 1 of the Decree, where it is obvious that the representative has been reverted to each representative in the business year when the representative has been changed, the amount shall be disposed of separately from each representative, and where the reversion is not clear, it shall be calculated separately according to the number of days of service period

C. Determination

(1) According to the provisions of Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17791 of Dec. 5, 2002) and Article 54 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 281 of Oct. 28, 2002), where it is obvious that the amount included in the calculation of earnings has leaked out of the company, the amount included in the calculation of earnings has been reverted to the representative, but where the sum of stocks owned by the person with a special relationship actually controls the operation of the corporation which owns not less than 30/100 of the total number of issued stocks or total investment amount of the corporation, the person shall be the representative, and where there are not less than two representatives, the actual representative shall be the representative, and where it is obvious that the amount reverted to each representative if it is changed during the business year, it shall be calculated separately according to the number of days of service period, and where

In full view of evidence Nos. 2-1, 4-1, 5-1, 2, 6-1, 5-1, 5-1, and 11-2 of the evidence Nos. 1, and 11, the plaintiff prepared and issued a letter of delegation to the plaintiff, who is the representative director of the National Association of Companies, with the authority of the National Assembly of Companies Nos. 20-2 of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. on April 30, 2004, 1, 2, 00-2 of the above Act on May 28, 2008, 200-2 of the above Act on the fact that the non-party company's 0-1, 1, 2, and 5-1, and 11-2 of the above Act on the part of the non-party company's representative director of the National Association of Companies No. 2 of the Republic of Korea on May 21, 2006.

According to the above facts, when major officers, including the representative director of the non-party company, are detained, the plaintiff, who is the representative of the council of private enterprisers belonging to the multi-level marketing network within the company, tried to normalize the company with the power to manage the company entrusted by Park-○, etc., which was under detention by the representative director at the time. Accordingly, when the plaintiff was appointed as the representative director of the non-party company on May 28, 2002 and made efforts to normalize the company, but it is judged that it is difficult to normalize the company due to excessive debts, etc., the plaintiff was dismissed from the office of the representative director on June 14 of the same year and registered Park-○ as the former representative director, it seems that the plaintiff did not participate in the management of the company.

Therefore, during the period from May 28, 2002 to June 13, 2002, when the Plaintiff registered as the representative director, it may be deemed that the Plaintiff operated the company while holding office as the representative director of the non-party company. However, since May 27, 2002, before being registered as the representative director, and after June 14 of the same year, even if the officers, including the representative director, were detained by the representative director, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually controlled the management of the non-party company. According to the evidence No. 2-2, according to the records No. 2-2, the non-party company director ○○ and the accounting officer Kim○-○ prepared a confirmation document that the Plaintiff actually managed the non-party company from May 1, 2005 to the closure of business. However, in light of the circumstance of the case acknowledged earlier and the time when the non-party company completed and issued the power of delegation to the Plaintiff, it is difficult to find it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is without merit.

(2) Considering the overall purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 6 and 14-1, 2, and 15-1, 15-3 of the evidence Nos. 6 and 14-2, the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant did not report corporate tax and did the disposition in this case on the basis of the amount of income calculated by applying the average income rate again to the sales amount calculated in consideration of the standard expense rate of the same type of business from February 8, 200 to June 30 of the same year on the basis of the purchase amount of the non-party company from February 8, 202 to

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(d) Justifiable tax amount.

Accordingly, when calculating the Plaintiff’s legitimate global income tax, 131,239,475 won, such as the details of calculation of the attached tax amount, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

The details of tax calculation;

Revenue amount

312,919,745 won

Labor Income Deduction

25,395,987 won

Global income ( earned income)

287,395,987 won

General

Income;

Mutual Aid

Basic Deduction

3,000,000 won

Standard Deduction

600,000 won

guidance.

3,600,000 won

Tax Base

283,923,758 won

Tax Rate

36%

calculated tax amount

90,512,552 won

Earned income tax deduction

600,000 won

Amount of final tax

89,912,552 won

Additional Tax

Impossibility of Report

18,102,510 won

Good Faith in Payment

23,224,412 won

Total determined tax amount (amount notified)

131,239,475 won