Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap2739 ( October 22, 2012)

National Tax Service Review Corporation 2011-0042 ( November 17, 2011)

The disposition imposing corporate tax on the plaintiff who is a nominal representative director by designating the plaintiff as the second taxpayer is illegal.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance), since an actual manager is a bad credit holder, the fact that the actual manager externally requires a person who represents the company and registers the plaintiff as a nominal representative director is confirmed through a letter of undertaking and a certificate of actual manager's confirmation, and thus, the disposition that the plaintiff is deemed an oligopolistic stockholder and is designated as the second taxpayer and imposed

2012Nu2234 Revocation of revocation of the imposition of corporate tax

DoAA

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap27339 decided June 22, 2012

November 9, 2012

December 21, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

Each disposition taken by the Defendant on June 21, 201 against the Plaintiff on KRW 000 (this tax is KRW 000, KRW 000), corporate tax for the business year 2010 (the first interim tax prepayment), corporate tax for the business year 2010 (the first interim tax prepayment), and KRW 000 (the second interim payment) corporate tax for the business year 2010 (the second interim payment) and KRW 000 (the second interim payment) for the corporate tax for the business year 2010.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

For the plaintiff to seek revocation of each disposition stated in the purport of the claim, the first instance court dismissed the lawsuit on the part of the claim for revocation of the imposition of additional dues, and accepted the claim for revocation of the principal tax disposition, and the plaintiff filed an appeal on the part against which only the defendant lost (the part of the claim for revocation of the imposition of additional dues) without filing an appeal. Accordingly, the scope of the judgment by the court is

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason for this decision is as stated in the column of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance concerning the remainder except for the part concerning the imposition of additional dues among the judgment of the court of the first instance.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case (excluding the part concerning the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues) must be accepted on the ground, and the judgment of the court of the first instance is just as it is concluded, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed