Early High Court Decision 2014J 3010 (Law No. 29, 2014)

Even if the representative director was registered on the corporate register, the income may not be reverted to the representative, unless it was actually operated by the company.

Even if the representative director of a company was registered on the corporate register of the company, such income cannot be attributed to the representative, unless it was actually operated by the company.

Article 67 (Disposition of Income)

2015Guhap6449 Other Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

the United Nations A

o Head of the Oral Tax Office

June 24, 2016

July 22, 2016

1. On December 5, 2013, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the global income tax of hh,h,h, orhh as of December 5, 2010 against the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant. The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

- 2-

1. Details of the disposition;

A. JinAAA (hereinafter “instant company”) is a company established on July 26, 2006 for the purpose of housing development business, etc. The Plaintiff was registered as a joint representative director in the corporate register of the instant company as well as the maximumB from December 24, 2008 to April 25, 2016.

B. The Defendant confirmed the fact that the instant company discontinued its business without filing a report on the corporate tax base and tax amount for the business year 2010, and determined the corporate tax to be corrected by calculating the estimated income amount for the instant company on the basis of estimation. On February 24, 2012, the Defendant deemed that c, 491, 147 won and d, d, d, d, and d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

C. On December 5, 2013, the Defendant imposed global income tax e, e, e, and e on the Plaintiff on the basis of the amount of income adjusted as above.

D. On May 29, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 201, 2014 through an objection on March 6, 2014. On December 11, 2013, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “the assessment of global income tax e, e, e, and e shall be determined by subtracting KRW 73,351,853 from the amount of the Plaintiff’s recognized bonus d, d, d, d, d, and d, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed.” In accordance with the purport of the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant issued a comprehensive income tax against the Plaintiff in 2010 as KRW f,ff, additional tax gg,ggg, ggggg,hh, and hh (hereinafter referred to as “the remaining part of the disposition of global income tax d, d, d, d, d, and hh.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff is registered as a joint representative in the corporate register of the instant company, the Plaintiff is merely a formal joint representative director who lends only the name to the largest BB who is another joint representative director, and the actual representative director is the largest BB. Thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual joint representative director of the instant company is unlawful.

B. Preliminaryly, on June 26, 2008, the company of this case increased its capital from KRW 50 million to KRW 50 million, and the amount of the increased capital of KRW 450 million to the company of this case was deposited in the company of this case and was immediately withdrawn and entered in the cash account of the company of this case only on the document, and no money was actually paid to the company of this case. On December 31, 2008, in order to reduce the above processed cash, the company of this case was treated as lending Doo,oo, and oo to the largest B B B's living together with the purpose of reducing the above processed cash, and there was no fact that it was actually lent to the lowest written agreement, and thus, Doo, oo, and oo out of the short-term loan disposed of by the defendant should be excluded from the amount of income of the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Article 106(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22812, Mar. 31, 2011) where it is evident that the amount included in the calculation of the income has leaked out of the company in determining or revising the corporate tax base, it shall be the bonus, dividend, other income, and other outflow from the company by the disposal of profits according to the person to whom the income belongs, and where it is unclear, it shall be the largest-4 -

The share ratio (%) of the number of shareholders (%) in SongCC 30,000 30,00 D 15,000 15,000 CE 10,000 10,00 10,000 MaximumB 35,000 35,00 35,00. In this context, the representative shall be the de facto representative operating of the company, and even if the company was registered as the representative director of the company, such income shall not be attributed to the representative (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du10461, Dec. 23, 2010).

Meanwhile, since a person who is registered as a representative director on the corporate register can be presumed to have actually been operating the company, the representative director on the corporate register must prove the fact that he/she actually failed to operate the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du187, Apr. 24, 2008).

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the Plaintiff was registered as a joint representative director of the instant company in the form of corporate register, and cannot be deemed to have actually operated the instant company. Thus, the instant disposition that deemed the Plaintiff as a joint representative of the instant company and imposed a comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff is unlawful.

① During the period of registration as a joint representative director of the instant company, the status of shareholders of the instant company is as follows. The Plaintiff did not hold shares of the instant company.

- 5-2 The Plaintiff did not receive benefits from the instant company during the period of registration as a joint representative director of the instant company.

③ Under the corporate register of the instant company, the Plaintiff did not own any one share of the shares of the instant company, and was engaged in the management of other companies, such as Zatt Co., Ltd., and submitted a written statement to the effect that “the Plaintiff did not participate in all of the business of the instant company and performed all of its business.” The Plaintiff submitted a written statement to the effect that “The Plaintiff, as the shareholders of the instant company, is the shareholders of the instant company, and the maximum NN also did not have any fact of having participated in all of its exercise of authority or management as the joint representative of the instant company.”

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.