Whether a company is a substantial business operator

According to relevant evidence, such as the matters of approval of the disbursement resolution, the actual representative who actually conducts the company shall be Kim ○, and the plaintiff is a representative under the name of the plaintiff, so the disposition of this case

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 105,562,590 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2004 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is recorded in the corporate register as being the representative director of the company from January 30, 2001 to October 30, 2001, which is the date of establishment of ○○ Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ○○○○ Industries Co., Ltd.) located in ○○○○○○○ Group.

B. The head of ○○ Tax Office having jurisdiction over the location of the above company: (a) deemed that the supply value of KRW 211,480,000, which the above company received from ○ Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Industry”) during the first taxable period of the value added tax in 2001, constitutes a processing purchase tax invoice; and (b) deemed that the supply value of KRW 173,320,000, which falls under the processing transaction, constitutes the processing purchase tax invoice, and accordingly, included KRW 189,522,00 as the above company’s gross income; and (c) deeming that the above amount was leaked out of the company and its ownership is unclear, the above amount was included in the company’s gross income, and thus, disposed of the above company’s income by recognizing

C. On July 1, 2004, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 105,562,590 of the global income tax for the year 2001 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The plaintiff raised an objection against the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office on July 21, 2004. However, he received a decision of dismissal on August 27, 2004, and requested an inquiry to the National Tax Tribunal on November 2004, but was dismissed on May 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence No. 5-1, 2, Gap 6, 7, 9, Evidence No. 10-1, Evidence No. 10-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful, and the plaintiff actually operated the above company was Kim ○, and he was registered as the representative director on the corporate register. Thus, the disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff is the representative who actually operated the above company should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 106 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17457 of Dec. 31, 2001) provides that the representative shall be deemed as a bonus to a unconditional representative regardless of its substance with respect to certain facts recognized as such in order to prevent an unfair act under tax laws, not based on the fact that such income has accrued to the representative. Thus, in light of the legislative intent and the contents of the provision in the Enforcement Decree, the representative shall be a de facto representative operating the company, and even if he was registered as the representative in the corporate register, if he did not actually operate the company, such recognized income shall not be imposed on the representative (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3802 of Apr. 11, 1989).

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence 11-1 to 5, Gap evidence 12, 13, Eul evidence 14-1 to 80, and the testimony of Kim ○○'s witness Kim○, Kim○ introduced the plaintiff who is close to management of the above company's ○○ Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. ("O○") and registered the plaintiff as the representative director in the above company's corporate register. The above company was designated as the above company's partner in the above company's corporate register. The plaintiff was not involved in the above company's business only two to three days, and the plaintiff was not involved in the above company's business. The "president of the above company's expenditure resolution (Ga evidence 14-14, No. 37, No. 38)" was signed at the "president of the above company's office," the plaintiff was in the name of the above company's representative director, and the plaintiff was in the name of the above ○○○ Kim's name, which was in the above Kim Kim Jae's name.

Therefore, the instant disposition on different premise is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified.