right of assertion that a representative director is only a representative director in the name of the corporation

Where there is no evidence showing that the corporation has been operating the corporation, and the fact that the corporation has been working as the representative director of another company is merely a representative director under the name of the corporation, not a representative director of the corporation.

Article 14 (Real Taxation under Framework Act on National Taxes)

Article 67 (Disposal of Income)

1. The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 165,029,980 as of February 5, 2007 against the Plaintiff and the imposition of global income tax of KRW 7,86,60 as of May 10, 2007 and global income tax of KRW 7,623,390 as of May 10, 2007 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The orders are as follows (However, the words " February 12, 2007" and " May 16, 2007" recorded in the warden appear as the words "2. 5 and May 10, 2007" respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On the corporate register, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of ○○○○○○ Scurz (hereinafter “instant company”) from April 29, 2002 to January 8, 2004.

B. Although the instant company sold KRW 393,368,00,000 to 2004 from 2002 to 2004, the head of the Seocho District Tax Office confirmed that it failed to report the sales amount of KRW 393,368,00,00 in total, the amount of the tax return was included in the gross income in calculating the income amount for each business year, and subsequently disposed of KRW 432,705,00,000 in total of the value-added tax on the sales amount with the recognition of the Plaintiff, and then notified the Defendant

C. On February 5, 2007 and May 10, 2007, based on the above taxation data, the defendant decided and notified each of the general income tax for the taxable period from 2002 to 2004 as stated in the order against the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "each of the dispositions in this case").

D. On July 31, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an objection against each of the dispositions of this case with the National Tax Tribunal. However, the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 9, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2-1-5, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 2-1 through 3, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 3, and Eul evidence 4-1 through 4-3, respectively.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of incorporation of the company of this case, the plaintiff only lent only the name of the representative director upon request of Park Jong-sik, the actual representative director, and did not participate in the management of the company of this case, and since there was no wage paid from the company of this case, each of the dispositions against the plaintiff of this case against the plaintiff of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 14 (Real Taxation under Framework Act on National Taxes)

Article 67 (Disposal of Income)

Article 106 (Disposition of Income)

C. Determination

1) The recognition contribution system for a representative under Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is not based on the fact that such income is generated by the representative, but it is intended to have certain facts recognized as such in order to prevent an unfair act under tax law by a corporation be considered as a bonus to the representative regardless of the substance. Thus, the representative of a corporation subject to the disposition of bonus must be interpreted strictly and strictly. Therefore, even if the representative is actually operating the corporation, the representative shall be the representative who operates the corporation, and even if he was registered on the corporate register, if he did not actually operate the corporation, the corporation’s unknown income shall not be imposed on the representative director (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu176, Mar. 8, 1994).

(3) On the 0th 2nd 7th 2nd 2nd 6th 2nd 1st 2nd 6th 2nd 1st 6th 2nd 6th 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 0th 2nd 1st 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 1st 200th 2nd 2nd 1st 200th 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 200th 2nd 3rd 2nd 200th 2nd 1st 202nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 1st 3rd 2nd 3rd 202nd 2nd 1st 202nd 202nd 20th 202nd 3rd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2002nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 200.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s dispositions of this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the representative director who actually managed the instant company are unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for all reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.