The legitimacy of the assertion that the title is the representative on the corporate register by lending the name upon request.

In full view of the fact that the plaintiff had been working as the representative director of another corporation and had considerable income, it is determined that the plaintiff was merely merely a representative director under the name of the company, not a representative director of the company of this case who actually operated the company of this case.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 67 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 165,029,980 as of February 5, 2007 against the Plaintiff, and the imposition of global income tax of KRW 7,866,60 as of May 10, 2007 and KRW 7,623,390 as of global income tax of KRW 7,86,60 as of May 10, 2007, respectively, shall be revoked.

The disposition is as follows (However, it appears that the phrase "......." recorded in the complaint and ".... of May 16, 2007" appears to be written as "each "............" and ".............." recorded in the complaint".

1.Basics

A. From April 29, 2002 to January 8, 2004 on the corporate register, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of ○○○○○○ Tech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

B. The director of the Seocho District Tax Office confirmed that the instant company did not report the sales amount of KRW 393,368,000,000, which was total value of the supply value of ○○○○CCCCCCCCCCB from 2002 to 2004, and confirmed that the said omitted amount was corrected by adding corporate tax to the gross income when calculating the income amount of each business year, while disposing of KRW 432,705,00,000, including value added tax, to the sales amount, as an admission to the Plaintiff, and then

C. On February 5, 2007 and May 10, 2007, based on the above taxation data, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of each of the total income tax for the taxable periods from 2002 to 2004 as stated in the order (hereinafter referred to as "each of the dispositions in this case").

D. On July 31, 2007, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on July 31, 2007, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 9, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2-1-5, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 2-1 through 3, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 3, and Eul evidence 4-1 through 4-3, respectively.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of incorporation of the company of this case, the plaintiff only lent only the name of the representative director upon request of Park Jong-sik, the actual representative director, and did not participate in the management of the company of this case, and since there was no wage paid from the company of this case, each of the dispositions against the plaintiff of this case against the plaintiff of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 67 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

C. Determination

1) The recognition contribution system for a representative under Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is not based on the fact that such income is generated by the representative, but it is intended to have certain facts recognized as such in order to prevent an unfair act under tax law by a corporation be considered as a bonus to the representative regardless of the substance. Thus, the representative of the corporation subject to the disposition of bonus must be interpreted strictly. Therefore, even if the representative is actually operating the corporation, if the representative is not actually operating the corporation, even if the corporation was registered on the corporate register, it shall not be imposed on the representative (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1176, Mar. 8, 1994).

2) In light of the above legal principles, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2, 5-1, 2, 8-1, 2, 16-1, 18-2, and 18-1 and 2’s testimony of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2, supra, established the following circumstances which can be acknowledged as referring to 1, 4, 5-1, 5-2, 8-2, and 18-1, 18-2, and 3-2’s testimony of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2, which had been reported to the Plaintiff on the ground of the fact that ○○○○○○○ 2,000’s name was 6-2,000 and 3-2,000 of the company’s name.

The plaintiff prepared a letter of confirmation that he will pay 1,066,00 won over 3 occasions, including 1,000 won. The plaintiff's 1,00,000 won was transferred from the bank account of the company of this case to the Kim○'s deposit account on July 31, 2002. ④ He was registered as a director and auditor from May 27, 2003 to July 22, 2005, and this ○○ was registered as a ○○○'s director from January 8, 2004 to the date, ⑤ The plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the company of this case for the period when the plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the company of this case on the corporate register, and there was no material to acknowledge that the plaintiff participated in the management of the company of this case or received benefits from the representative director of the company of this case. Rather, the plaintiff was registered as the ○○'s representative director from May 201 to 130, 2001.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s dispositions of this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the representative director who actually managed the instant company are unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for all reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.