It is the fact that the actual executive who owns more than 30% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares has de facto control over management.

The plaintiff can be sufficiently confirmed that the plaintiff actually owned 60% of the total number of outstanding shares of the non-party company and has overall control over all the affairs of finance, tax-related business, financing management, etc.

2011Guhap3098 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

XX Kim

Head of Seocho Tax Office

September 23, 2011

October 21, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 1,110,149,420 against the Plaintiff on June 10, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"P. The company established on October 21, 2003 (the name at the time of its incorporation was changed as of June 30, 2004, but the name was changed as of June 30, 2004, hereinafter referred to as "non-party company"). On June 30, 2004, the right A was registered as a director, the BB as the representative director, and the GangwonCC as the auditor." (B) The director of the tax office conducted a tax investigation on the non-party company in June 2009 with the non-party company as of June 21, 2009, found that some of the 6 billion won from the △△ Savings Bank was not repaid from time to time as the representative was paid, and corrected corporate tax against the non-party company by calculating the amount of provisional payment and interest that was not recovered, and notified the non-party company of the change in the name of this 60% of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company or the amount actually owned by the plaintiff 6065%.

C. On June 10, 2010, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 1,110,149,420 to the Plaintiff on the global income tax attributed to 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On September 8, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition for an adjudication with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on December 6, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is not the actual representative of the non-party company, and from time to time with the non-party company, the right to receive the loan when acquiring the non-party company. However, the disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff is the actual representative is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) ShapD, a real representative of the non-party company, agreed to transfer all shares issued by the non-party company to approximately KRW 5 billion to the Plaintiff and agreed to transfer KRW 30,000,000,000 to the non-party company, including the down payment of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, was paid by the transferee of the non-party company, and the other party who entered into the transfer contract with the public official in charge in relation to the non-party company in the investigation and investigation, made a statement to the effect that on July 21, 2009, the other party who entered into the transfer contract was the right A and the plaintiff was the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's driver was the plaintiff's receipt of the non-party company with the non-party company.

(2) In order to raise the above stock acquisition fund, the Plaintiff received a total of 6 billion won from the △△○ Savings Bank that it had transacted prior to his example, on June 30, 2004, a total of 6 billion won in the name of the non-party company. At the time, the Plaintiff exclusively handled the loan-related business.

(3) On the day the loan was executed, KRW 810,00,000 of the balance of the non-party company's share purchase price to DD; KRW 2.35,00,000 to the non-party company's own loan account; KRW 270,193,718 to the non-party company's own loan account; KRW 3,625,697,80 to the loan account; KRW 2.3 billion to the non-party company's above account; KRW 2.5 billion to the non-party company's loan account; KRW 2.00,000,000 to the non-party company's account; KRW 2.00,000 to the non-party company's loan account; KRW 1.5 billion to the non-party company's loan account; KRW 2.00,000,000 to the non-party company's name deposit account; and KRW 1.5 billion to the non-party company's own deposit account; and 2.

(4) The remaining loans, which were not left from the loan account on the date of loan, were ① on July 7, 2004, with KRW 200 million as the previous creditor of the non-party company, ② on July 13, 2004, KRW 300 million as the account in the name of the non-party company; ③ on August 23, 2004, KRW 192,157,784 as the account in the name of the non-party company; ④ on September 22, 2004, KRW 200,000,000,000 KRW 20,000,000 was 20,000,000 won in cash and KRW 30,000,000 in the name of the non-party company 4,000,000 in the name of the non-party 2,30,000 won in the name of the non-party 4,00,04.

(5) On the corporate register of the non-party company, this BB was registered from June 30, 2004 to April 13, 2005 by EPP, each of the representative directors of EP, and Gangnam was registered from June 30, 2004 to April 21, 2005, and thereafter the above EH and each of the auditors was registered. This BB was a student of EH as a student of EH and lent the name to the plaintiff upon the request of the sentence. This PP was also lent to the plaintiff. This is also a loan to the plaintiff if the plaintiff had been known for the long time to the non-party company's name as a director of the non-party company. It is true that Gangnam lent the name to the plaintiff through GGG, which was delivered by the plaintiff to the plaintiff in the name of the plaintiff, and it also delivered the documents related to the loan to △△ O bank to the plaintiff in the name of the plaintiff.

(6) On the other hand, as of the end of 2004, 15,000 shares issued on the register of shareholders of the non-party company, among the 30,000 shares issued on the register of shareholders of the non-party company, were in the name of thisB, and 3,000 shares, 10%, and the remaining 12,00 shares, respectively, in the name

(7) On April 21, 2005, the non-party company transferred its head office to XX building in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, where △△dong company was located. At that time, the non-party company, whose representative director was registered as the representative director on the corporate register of the non-party company on July 21, 2009, responded to the investigation in relation to the non-party company on July 21, 2009 and the public official in charge and questioning the non-party company, and the non-party company was the chairperson, and the non-party company was one former secretary and the plaintiff's birth, but the room used by the plaintiff was named as the chairperson's office.

The AA stated that the plaintiff was not a son.

[인정근거] 앞서 든 증거, 갑 제2호증의 1, 2, 3, 갑 제6, 7호증, 갑 제9호증의 1, 2, 을 제4호증, 을 제6부터 11호증, 을 제12호증의 1, 2, 을 제13호증의 1, 2 의 기재, 증인 이HH, 정QQ의 증언(다만, 갑 제2호증의 1, 갑 제9호증의 1, 2, 을 제13호증의 2의 각 기재와 위 증인들의 증언 중 각 뒤에서 믿지 아니하는 부분 제외), 변론 전체의 취지

D. Determination

(1) 위에서 인정한 사실들 및 그에 드러난 사정들, 즉 원고가 권AA과는 금전거래만 있었을 뿐 동업관계가 아니라고 주장하면서도, 대차거래사실의 입증은 고사하고 거래내역의 특정조차 못하고 있는 점(갑 제3호증의 기재에 의하면 심지어 서DD에게서 고소당하여 수사를 받을 때조차도 권AA에게 빌려 준 금액을 특정하지 못하였음을 엿볼 수 있다)이나 △△금고에서 60억 원을 대출받기 이전에 소외회사의 주식양수와 관련하여 양수인 측이 지출한 현금은 고작 2-3억 원으로서 이를 모두 원고가 권 AA에게 대여하였다고 쳐도 그 7-11배에 달하는 22억 원(수표로 인출한 20억 원 및 자신이 관리하던 이HH 명의의 계좌로 이체한 2억 원)을 대출 당일 소외회사의 예금 계좌에서 원고가 마음대로 빼내어 갈 이유가 없고, 더구나 그렇게 빼간 금액 중 상당 부분을 소외회사의 업무와 관련하여 지출한 후 다시 20억 원을 회사에 입금할 이유도 없는 점, 권AA을 제외하면 소외회사의 인수 이후 임원으로 등기된 사람들은 모두 권 AA과는 무관한 반면 원고와는 절친하거나 직간접으로 인연이 닿는 사이인 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 원고가 권AA과 함께 소외회사의 운영권을 양수한 후 이BB 등의 명의로 소외회사 발행주식총수의 60%를 사실상 소유하면서 소외회사의 금융관련업무, 세금관련업무, 자금관리 등 제반 업무를 총괄하였음을 넉넉히 추인할 수 있고, 이에 반하는 갑 제2호증의 4, 갑 제3호증의 기재, 갑 제2호증의 1, 갑 제9호증의 1, 2 및 을 제 13호증의 2의 각 일부 기재와 증인 이HH, 정QQ의 일부 증언은 모두 믿지 아니하며, 갑 제6, 7, 8호증 및 갑 제10호증의 1, 2의 각 기재만으로는 위의 인정을 뒤집기 부족하고 달리 반증이 없다.

(2) Thus, the plaintiff actually controlled the management of the non-party company as an executive officer who owns not less than 30/100 of the total number of the non-party company's shares. Thus, 2,790,516,656 won equivalent to 60% of the amount of the non-party company's shares, but whose ownership is unclear, shall be deemed to have been reverted to the plaintiff pursuant to the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. Accordingly, the disposition of this case made

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost.