Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap5461 ( October 27, 2011)

National Tax Service Review Income 2009-0033 ( November 04, 2009)

It shall not be deemed a representative in fact because it is not the representative director on the register of the corporation and is not an officer who actually controls the management.

(See the judgment of the court of first instance) The disposition imposing tax by deeming the plaintiff as the representative is unlawful on the ground that the representative was not the representative director on the register of the corporation, and that the actual control over the management of the corporation did not meet the requirements of the officer, and there is no evidence to deem that the omitted amount of sales actually reverts to the plaintiff.

2011Nu39815 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

XX Kim

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap5461 Decided October 27, 2011

March 30, 2012

April 20, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. Of the disposition of the court of first instance, on February 1, 2009, the correction of the Guro, 000 won on February 6, 2009, among the disposition of the court of first instance shall be made as KRW 000, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2005, which was vested in the Plaintiff on February 6, 2009 (which appears to have been written in writing on February 1, 2009) and KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2005, is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this judgment is identical with the judgment of the first instance, except where the "00 won, which is the second fifteenth day of Feb. 1, 2009, which is the second fifteenth day of the judgment of the first instance, is the second day of Feb. 6, 2009, and the third half day of the judgment is 000 won", and therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for the reasons. Since the decision of the first instance is just in conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. On February 1, 2009 of the decision of the court of first instance, it is obvious that the "00 won" of February 6, 2009 is a clerical error of "00 won", each correction is made.