Whether the actual income earner of the bonus paid by the multi-level marketing company is the plaintiff

It is reasonable to see that the actual reversion of the bonus is the Plaintiff, since the bonus was deposited into the passbook of the former place where the person was staying in a foreign country, but there was no fact that there was no business activity to receive the bonus and there was no use of the bonus.

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

Article 80 (Determination and Correction)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 11,843,380 of global income tax for the year 2001 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2006 (which appears to be a clerical error on February 16, 2006) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 19, 1996, the Plaintiff is a business operator who runs a multi-level marketing business as a member of the non-party ○○○○○○ Korea Co., Ltd. (the title at that time is △△△ Korea Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”).

B. The head of XX tax office notified the Defendant who has jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s residence of taxation data on the ground that the actual person to whom the bonus of KRW 111,698,862 deposited by the non-party company in the passbook in the name of Kim Jong-gu, the Plaintiff’s wife (hereinafter “instant income”) was the Plaintiff.

C. On October 4, 2005, the Defendant issued a prior notice of taxation amounting to KRW 11,552,00,000, to the Plaintiff for the year 2001.

D. On October 20, 2005, the plaintiff appealed and filed a request for pre-assessment review to the defendant. On November 11, 2005, the defendant made a decision that "a re-survey and make a decision because it is necessary to verify specific facts about the plaintiff's assertion."

E. On February 1, 2006, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 11,843,380 on the Plaintiff for the year 2001, following an investigation into the financial account, etc. in the name of Kim Jong-tae.

F. On May 3, 2006, the Defendant requested the National Tax Tribunal for a trial on May 3, 2006, but was dismissed by the National Tax Tribunal on June 30, 2006.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 3 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legality of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the bonus that the non-party company deposited into the account in 2001 is the business income of Kim Jong-young, the plaintiff's former wife, and is unrelated to the plaintiff, the defendant's deeming the person to whom the issue income accrued as the plaintiff and the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 2 through Eul evidence 12-2.

(1) The non-party company is a foreign-invested corporation that has invested 100% by the United States and sells cosmetics, health foods, medical appliances, water purifiers, etc. in multi-level manners, and the plaintiff was registered as a member of the non-party company on March 19, 196.

(2) The non-party company manages the members by the husband’s unit and deposits the bonus into the account of the person who reported as the representative among them. At first, the plaintiff was reported as the representative on January 8, 2001, and the wife Kim Jong-tae was changed to the representative on August 13, 2002, and the plaintiff was changed to the representative again on August 13, 2002. Meanwhile, on the other hand, Kim Jong-tae left Korea on July 8, 1999, and returned to Korea on February 26, 2002, and the plaintiff and Kim Jong-tae was divorced on April 14, 2003.

(3) 원고는 2001. 1. 8. △△은행 XX역지점에 국외에 체류 중이던 김□□ 명의로 계좌(계좌번호 : 358-2＊-＊＊＊＊-＊＊＊)를 개설하였는데, 소외 회사는 2001. 1. 15.부터 2001. 12. 25.까지 위 계좌에 합계 111,698,862원의 후원수당을 입금하였으며, 2002년 1월경부터 2002년 8월경까지도 같은 계좌에 합계 78,172,796원의 후원수당을 입금하였다.

(4) 소외 회사는 위 기간 이후인 2002년 9월경부터 2002년 12월경까지는 원고 명의의 ○○은행 계좌(계좌번호 : 360-2＊-＊＊＊-＊＊＊)에 후원수당을 입금하였는데, 이 예금계좌는 종전에 원고가 대표로 신고되어 있던 기간 중에도 후원수당을 입금받던 계좌이다.

(5) During the period from January 27, 2001 to December 26, 2001, Kim △△ Bank’s account in the name of Kim △ Bank, cash was withdrawn over 31 times through the cash payment system for the △ Bank in the name of Kim △ Bank.

(6) When the Plaintiff did not file a global income tax on KRW 106,192,02,028 of business income in 2002, the Defendant did not raise any objection against the bonuses of KRW 78,172,796 that was deposited in the account of the above △△△ Bank in the name of Kim Jong-si from January 2002 to August 2002 and the bonuses of KRW 25,976,49 that was deposited in the above ○ Bank account in the name of the Plaintiff from September 2002 to December 2002, deeming the entire bonuses of KRW 25,976,49 that were deposited in the above ○ Bank account in the name of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s business income in July 1, 2004. However, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection against this.

D. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that, in the instant case where there is no evidence to support the fact that Kim Jong-gu, the former wife of the Plaintiff, was engaged in any business activities to receive the bonus, which is a key income in the year 2001 when he was staying in a foreign country, or that the actual owner of the key income actually used the above bonus, the actual owner of the key income in the instant case is the Plaintiff who resided in the Republic of Korea at the time of living in the country and actually managed the account in the name of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

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

○ Decision and rectification under Article 80 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006)

(1) If a person liable to make a final return on the tax base pursuant to Articles 70 through 72 or 74 fails to make such return, the chief of the district tax office or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall determine the