The price received from the assets of a corporation shall be the bonus.

The representative director, who is a company and its members, sells the assets of the corporation as a separate person clearly distinguished and receives the assets from the plaintiff, which constitutes a bonus under the Corporate Tax Act, which discharges the assets out of the company.

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

Article 5 of the Income Tax Act

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On May 15, 2007, the imposition of global income tax of KRW 1,357,380,470 for the year 2001 by Defendant Dongsan Tax Director and the imposition of KRW 135,738,40 for the resident tax imposed by the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

On March 2, 2007, the head of the Dongsan Tax Office, as the representative director of the ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Construction Co., Ltd.”) sold each land listed in the separate sheet owned by ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) at KRW 4,309,734,00,00, out of the sales price received KRW 3,015,00,000 from 3,005,00, and distributed the property of the original corporation to the private sector in a way of personal use on behalf of the Plaintiff on May 15, 201, and then issued a notice of change in the income amount to the ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○”) and then issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 301,347,370,470, and the head of the above Gu on March 2, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the above head of the resident tax”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 25, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff sold the instant land to ○○ case on March 31, 199, the instant disposition was made after the lapse of the exclusion period of five years thereafter. The instant land is not owned by ○○ Company, but owned by ○○ Company, and the Plaintiff merely owned the Plaintiff’s title trust with ○○ Company. Thus, even if the Plaintiff sold the instant land to ○○ case, it is not an outflow from the company, and the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

Article 5 of the Income Tax Act

Article 20 of the Income Tax Act

Article 21 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 26-2 of the National Tax Basic Act

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Around September 191, 191, the ○○○○ Land Partitioning Association (hereinafter “Association”) contracted the installation work (hereinafter “instant installation work”) to ○○ Public Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Public Co., Ltd.). The ○○ Public Co., Ltd. subcontracted the structure construction work to ○○ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Development”) whose representative director is the Plaintiff.

(2) On June 1992, when the ○ Public Office becomes bankrupt, the ○○ Development, which had no comprehensive construction business license around March 1993, borrowed a license from ○○ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Development”) and continued the construction of the instant facilities after being awarded a contract from the partnership.

(3) On April 1, 1993, ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Construction Co., Ltd.”) made it difficult to raise funds for the instant facility construction, ○○ Development agreed to sell the development recompense land from the partnership to ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. to ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Construction Co., Ltd.”) as site for apartment site, and used KRW 600 million from ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. for construction fund

(4) Around August 25, 1994, the fact that ○○ Development lent a comprehensive construction business license to another construction business license was discovered, and the license was revoked, the ○○ Development continued the instant facility construction business by lending the ○○ type license.

(5) On August 19, 1994, ○ Development received 2,865,656,000 square meters of development recompense land equivalent to 10,532.8 square meters of development recompense land equivalent to 2,865,656,000 won for the instant facility construction from the partnership. After acquiring the instant land in consultation with and exchanging the land scattered in various places with the props, it sold it to ○○ case, and registered the ownership on the land development recompense land register in the name of ○○ case. On May 23, 1995, ○○ case commenced the new apartment construction project with the approval of the housing construction project plan. After this, ○○ case started the new apartment construction project, it was impossible to continue the new apartment construction project due to the lack of ○○ type financial situation, and on March 12, 1996, ○○ development and ○○ type apartment construction made payment of KRW 600 million to ○○ case, and settled the instant land and the instant right to develop.

(6) 그 후 ○○종건도 부도를 내기에 이르자 원고는 1996.4.29. 전문건설업체인 ○○기업 주식회사(이하 ○○기업이라 한다)의 주식 50%를 인수하여 대표이사로 취임하였고, ○○개발은 ○ㅍ기업의 명의로 이 사건 시설공사를 계속하면서 이 사건 토지의 체비지대장상 명의를 ○○종건에서 ○○기업으로 변경하여 등재해 두었다.

(7) The Plaintiff established ○○ Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○ Industry”) and tried to continue the implementation of the apartment construction project. However, on March 31, 1999, the Plaintiff decided to waive the implementation of the project and transfer the right to implement the apartment construction project to ○○ case following the series of construction works. The instant land was sold to 4,309,734,000 won on ○○ case, and changed the name on the register of land secured for recompense for development outlay, and received KRW 3,015,00,000 out of the sales price from February 26, 2001 to May 3, 2001.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 through 6, Gap evidence 6, 8, 14, 17, 18, 21, 26 through 32, 43, Gap evidence 23-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-3, Eul evidence 16, Eul's partial testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) First, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay income tax is established on December 31, 2001, which is the end of the taxable period, and the Defendants may impose income tax on the Plaintiff from the above day, and as long as the Plaintiff did not file a tax base return on the above purchase price, the instant disposition on May 15, 2007, which was issued on the day before the expiration of 7 years from this date, did not err in the misapprehension of the exclusion period.

(2) 다음으로 사외유출 여부에 관하여 보건대, 위 인정사실에 의하면 이 사건 토지는 원고가 ○○기업의 대표이사가 되기 전에 지급받은 체비지로서 ○○기업으로부터 토지대금을 수령한 바 없으므로 ○기업에 명의신탁되었던 것은 맞으나 그 명의를 '신탁'한 실소유자에 관하여 보면, 회사가 외형상으로는 법인의 형식을 갖추고 있으나 이는 법인의 형태를 빌리고 있는 것에 지나지 아니하고 그 실질에 있어서는 완전히 그 법인격의 배후에 있는 타인의 개인기업에 불과하거나 그것이 배후자에 대한 법률적용을 회피하기 위한 수단에 불과하다는 등의 특단의 사정이 없는 이상 회사와 그 구성원인 대표이사는 엄연히 구분되는 별개의 인격체이고, 이는 그 회사가 사실상 1인회사라고 하더라도 마찬가지인데, 갑 제6호증의 기재에 의하면 ○○개발은 원고, 이○우, 김○연 세명이 공동대표이사로 있었던 사실을 알 수 있으므로 ○○개발이 사실상 1인회사라고 보기도 어려울 뿐만 아니라, 가사 위 이○우와 김○연이 회사에 대한 권한이나 지분이 전혀 없는 명목상의 대표이사에 불과하다고 하더라도 ○○개발과 원고를 동일 시할 수는 없는 것인바, 앞서 본 사실을 종합하면, 이 사건 시설공사는 ○○개발이 조합으로부터 도급받아 시행한 것이지 원고 개인이 ○○개발과는 무관하게 독자적으로 도급받아 시행하였다고 볼 수 없고 (원고는 ○○공영과 ○○개발 사이의 1991.12.24.자 하도급계약서 (갑 제6호증)에 ○○개발의 법인 인감이나 대표이사 직인이 아닌 원고 개인의 도장이 날인되어 있는 점, 1996.3.12.자 정산약정서(갑 제23호증)는 ○○개발이 아니 원고 개인과 ○○종건 사이에 작성된 것인 점 등을 볼 때 이 사건 시골공사는 원고가 도급받은 것이라고 주장하나, 위 1991.12.24.자 하도급계약서에는 원고뿐만 아니라 ○○개발 공동대표이사인 이○우, 김○연의 성명과 직인도 함께 있는 점을 볼 때 ○○개발 명의로 한 것이지 원고 개인 명의로 체결한 계약이라 볼 수 없고, 갑 제24호증의 2의 긱재에 의하면 위 1996.3.12.자 정산약정에 따라 ○○종건에게 정산금 6억원을 지급한 자는 ○○개발인 사실을 알 수 있는바 위 약정은 실제로는 ○○개발과 ○○종건 사이에 이루어진 약정으로 보아야 할 것이다). 이에 반하는 증인 김○현의 일부 증언은 믿을 수 없고, 원고는 원고의 비용으로 이 사건 시설공사를 하였다고 주장하면서 이에 부합하는 증거로 갑 제12호증을 제출하고 있으나 갑 제7호증의 기재에 비추어 볼 때 원고가 동생 박○오로부터 대여한 금원의 대부분은 이 사건 시설공사비가 아니라 원고가 조합에 대여하였다가 되돌려 받은 바 있는 지장물 보상비로 사용된 것으로 보이므로 이를 원고의 비용으로 공사한 증거로 삼기에 부족하며, 달리 증거가 없다.

Therefore, this case's land corresponding to the land allotted as a result of the progress payment for the facility construction of this case shall be deemed to be owned by ○○ Development, which is not the plaintiff, and the sale price shall be sold to ○○ Construction, and the act of receiving the sale price from the plaintiff by the plaintiff constitutes "the act of discharging ○○ Development's property out of the private company, which

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per the droughtbb.