Whether the taxation imposed upon the representative under the corporate register is legitimate;

According to the facts approved by the fund-related documents, the fact that the person received benefits, and the fact that he/she held stocks of the corporation, etc. while being registered as the representative director on the corporate register, the fact that he/she is the representative of the corporation

Article 67 (Disposal of Income)

Article 87 (Scope of Person with Special Relationship)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 459,971,220 for the Plaintiff on February 1, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 11, 2003 to May 10, 2005, the Plaintiff entered ○○○○○○○○○-2 ○○○ Office Office, etc. in the corporate register of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “non-party corporation”). As a result of the investigation into the non-party corporation, the head of the Seocho District Tax Office confirmed that the non-party corporation received the tax invoice of KRW 862,254,000 without real transaction from data, etc. in the business year 2004, and confirmed that the non-party corporation received the tax invoice of KRW 862,225,400 without real transaction. On July 1, 2006, the value-added tax was corrected by deducting the input tax amount from the value-added tax amount of KRW 86,225,400 from the non-party corporation’s income amount, including the corporate tax calculated by correcting the amount of the non-party corporation’s income amount by including the changes in the income amount.

B. On February 1, 2007, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data as above and did not receive an additional return and payment of global income tax from the Plaintiff. On February 1, 2007, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to correct and notify the Plaintiff of the global income tax amounting to KRW 459,971,220 for the year 204.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant on March 14, 2007, and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on July 11, 2007, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on October 30, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 9 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the non-party legal entity on the corporate register by lending his name to Kim ○-si. Since the actual operator and the representative of the non-party legal entity are Kim ○-si, the instant disposition was imposed on the Plaintiff, who is the nominal representative director of the non-party legal entity.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 67 (Disposal of Income)

Article 87 (Scope of Person with Special Relationship)

Article 106 (Disposition of Income)

C. Determination

1) The recognition contribution system for a representative under Article 106(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is not a system based on the facts that such a representative has generated income, but a specific fact that can be recognized as such in order to prevent an unfair act under tax law by a corporation should be regarded as a bonus for a unconditional representative regardless of its substance. Thus, the "representative" under the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act should be a de facto representative operating the company. Thus, even if the representative of the company was registered as a representative in the corporate register, if the company does not actually operate, such income shall not be attributed to the representative and shall not be imposed on the representative. However, since the representative is recognized as substantially operating the company under social norms, the representative director must prove that he has actually failed to operate the company.

2) In this case, the Plaintiff registered as the representative director of the non-party corporation on the corporate register from July 11, 2003 to May 10, 2005. Meanwhile, considering the statement of No. 3-1 to No. 8, No. 6-1, No. 7-2, No. 7-1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 8-1 of the testimony and testimony of the non-party 8, the Plaintiff, who was working for the ○○○ Group’s research institute, established only 0,000, or the non-party corporation with respect to the project for which he had been working for 00, and the Plaintiff received 00,000 won for 80,000 won for 0,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for .

According to the above facts, the plaintiff can sufficiently confirm the fact that the plaintiff is the representative of the non-party corporation who actually operated the lawsuit on behalf of the non-party corporation on his own or jointly with Kim ○-si. According to Gap evidence 2 through 7 (including each number), Gap evidence 11-2, Gap evidence 14-2, and witness Kim ○-si's testimony, Kim ○-si stated in the employee statement as the chairperson of the non-party corporation, and approved the non-party corporation as the chairperson of the non-party corporation in the document of approval such as the written decision on the expenditure statement of the non-party corporation. Kim ○-si approved the non-party corporation as the chairperson of the non-party corporation on the document of approval, such fact that the non-party corporation entered and withdrawn through the bank account and foreign exchange bank account of the non-party corporation. The fact that the non-party corporation was confirmed to have performed the actual business of the non-party corporation on April 26, 2005, the non-party corporation's head of the non-party corporation, and the non-party corporation's head of the company.

3) Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is merely a nominal representative director of the non-party corporation is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.