Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu 63647 ( November 25, 2016)

The amount included in the calculation of the corporate tax base in the determination and correction of the corporate tax shall be disposed of to the person to whom it belongs as bonus, dividend, other outflow from company, internal reservation

In light of the overall purport of the arguments and facts, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff served as the representative director of the company of this case and actually operated as the representative director, and that the plaintiff disposed of the income of this case as bonus to the plaintiff

Article 106 (Disposition of Income)

Seoul High Court 2016Nu78273

AA

QQ세무서장

Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap63647

June 23, 2017

August 11, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2013 shall be revoked on the global income tax X, trade-level, trade-level, trade-level, and trade-level, trade-level.

1. Quotation of the reason for judgment under paragraph (1);

The reasoning of this judgment is as follows, except for the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

○ 2nd 7th 7th Roster "the corporation of this case" shall be "the company of this case".

○ 2 pages 8, 2009 " April 23, 2009" shall be " April 23, 2009".

○○ 13th page 13 "Witness Kim00" is regarded as "Hun-one witness of the first instance trial".

○ 5.12 to 15.

“A person registered as a representative director on the corporate register but has not actually been operated by the company concerned, no comprehensive income tax shall be imposed on the company’s income, and on the other hand, since a person registered as the representative director on the corporate register can be presumed to have actually been operating the company, the representative director on the corporate register shall prove the actual non-operating of the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du1811, Dec. 23, 2010). In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the above facts and circumstances as seen earlier, or the following facts and circumstances, each statement on the evidence Nos. 3 through 10, and 17 (including each number), and some testimony by a witness Kim 00 of the court of first instance cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff was actually operating the company of this case, and there is no other evidence to support that the Plaintiff was actually operating the company of this case.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim in this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.