The legitimacy of the assertion that the disposition is a formal representative for recognition

It cannot be readily concluded that the plaintiff was not the actual representative of the non-party company in light of the fact that the non-party company was engaged and engaged in the same type of business as that of the non-party company, and that the defendant was not dissatisfied with the taxation of the non-party company'

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 15, 2001 to November 20, 2002, the Plaintiff is registered as the representative director of the corporation registry of ○○ Transportation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “foreign corporation”).

B. From April 1, 2002 to September 2002, the Defendant: (a) deemed the supply price of KRW 58,520,000, which the non-party company received from ○○ Cargo Co., Ltd. as a tax invoice received without real transaction; and (b) notified the amount of purchase to be corrected by adding up the corporate tax to deductible expenses; (c) around January 6, 2005, the above purchase amount was disposed of as bonus and notified of the change in the amount of income; (d) however, on July 1, 2005, the Plaintiff imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax of KRW 19,658,690 (including additional tax) on which the total income tax for the year 2002 belonged to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff previously lent 30 million won to Nonparty Company’s de facto manager requested the issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression on the grounds that it is necessary for the Plaintiff to obtain loans from the insurance company, and accordingly, issued the certificate of personal seal impression to ○○○○. Since ○○○ arbitrarily recorded the Plaintiff as the representative director of the Nonparty Company, the Plaintiff could not impose a comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff on the ground that the income of which ownership is unknown belongs only to the Plaintiff as the representative director of the Nonparty Company in the form of the

1. On the first ground for appeal

In full view of Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2-5, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff resided in the fourth floor of ○○○○○ Dong, Seoul, from Sep. 1, 1998 to Sept. 30, 2001, and operated the cargo transport business with the trade name "○○○○○○○○○" from Sep. 1, 1998 to Sept. 30, 2001. The plaintiff was working as the head of the business office in the Seoul Office of ○○○○ Industrial Corporation (Seoul ○○○○○○○ Dong, Seoul ○○○○○○○○ Dong, 3 floors) located in Ulsan Industrial Corporation from Jan. 1, 2001 to Jun. 30, 2003. The plaintiff did not appeal against the non-party company's income tax on Oct. 1, 2004; and the plaintiff did not appeal against the non-party company's taxation omission.

2. On the second ground for appeal

As seen above, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff continued to engage in cargo transport business since September 1, 1998 and thereafter after 2003; (b) the Plaintiff was working for ○○○○○○ in the Plaintiff’s ○○ Industrial Company; and (c) the Defendant did not object to the Plaintiff’s taxation by omitting filing a return on earned income belonging to the year 2002 by omitting filing a return; (d) it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff was not the actual representative of the Nonparty Company from October 15, 2001 to November 20, 202; and (e) contrary thereto, each statement of evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the actual representative of the Nonparty Company was the ○○○○○○.

Therefore, the disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff is the representative of the non-party company is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion against this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.