External effect of the representative on the registry

Since external action of the company can only be done under the name of the representative director, the act of expressing the outside intention of the company itself shall be deemed to have been performed with the delegation of the representative director, unless it is stolen in the name of another person.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

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 6,378,460 for the Plaintiff on May 1, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. On April 8, 2002, 202, 2002, 202, 2002, and the sales business of medical devices and health assistive devices, current business, precious metals, and trade business, etc. The Plaintiff was registered as the representative director on the corporate register of ○○ Aggregate from May 13, 2002 to March 4, 2004.

B. On October 6, 2003, 2003, ○○○ World received a tax invoice of KRW 40,944,190 (hereinafter “the tax invoice of this case”) from a stock company (hereinafter “○○○”) and then included it in the calculation of losses, and filed a tax base and tax amount of corporate tax in 2003.

C. On the ground that the instant tax invoice received from data merchants is a false tax invoice without real transactions, the head of the Yeongdeungpo District Tax Office revised corporate tax for 2003 by excluding the supply value of the instant tax invoice from deductible expenses. On the other hand, on the ground that the said supply value of KRW 40,94,190 was leaked and its ownership is unclear, Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8331 of Dec. 31, 2007) and the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the head of the Yeongdeungpo District Tax Office issued a notice of change in the income amount for 203 years, and notified the Defendant, who is the representative director of the ○○○○ World, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the domicile of the Plaintiff, of the taxation data.

D. Accordingly, on May 1, 2007, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 6,378,460 of global income tax for the year 2003 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition with the National Tax Tribunal on November 2, 2007, but the Director of the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on January 23, 2008.

F. Meanwhile, as of December 31, 2002, the Plaintiff owned 60% of the shares of ○○○ Aggregate (15,200 shares) as of December 31, 2003, as of December 31, 2003, owned 60% of the shares of ○○ Aggregate (18,600 shares) between 196 and 1998’s shares, and received KRW 12,00,000 from ○ Aggregate under the pretext of benefits from ○○ Aggregate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2-1 through 8, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff, as a person with bad credit standing, was registered as a representative director on the corporate register of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was unable to conduct any business under one’s name, and did not actually participate in the management of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. Therefore, the instant global income tax should be imposed on the principal offender pursuant to the principle of substantial taxation under

(2) The instant disposition that premised on the instant tax invoice is a processing transaction is unlawful, since ○○○○○ was actually purchased from ○○○○, a manager of the instant ○○○ Fund.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

C. Determination

(1) As to the first argument

(A) The recognition contribution system for the representative under Article 106(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is not based on the fact that such income has accrued to the representative, but it is intended to have certain factual relations recognized as such in order to prevent an unfair act under tax law by a corporation deemed as a bonus to the representative regardless of its substance. In such a case, the representative of the corporation subject to the disposition of bonus must be strictly interpreted, and on the other hand, it can be presumed that the representative of the corporation is operated by the company. Thus, the representative of the corporation in the corporate register can be presumed that the representative of the corporation did not actually operate the company, and the fact that the representative of the corporation did not bear the legal responsibility for the corporate transaction should be proved by

(B) We examine whether the Plaintiff is the representative of ○○○○○○○, which is the subject of a disposition taken by the Plaintiff under these legal principles. The Plaintiff was registered as the representative director on the 2003 business year registry, and was continuously paid 49,03% or 60% of the shares of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. The representative director is an essential institution of a company externally representing the company, and the company’s external act cannot be established without the representative director. Since the act of expressing the intent of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was conducted only under the name of the representative director, it shall be deemed to have been conducted with the delegation of the representative director, so long as it does not abuse the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○’s external act, regardless of whether the motive was or actually involved in the management or decision-making of the company, the Plaintiff is sufficiently responsible for the Plaintiff’s legal duty of ○○○○○○○○○.

(C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was not the representative of ○○○○○ World is without merit.

(2) On the second argument

(A) Facts of recognition

1) Although the representative director of the ○○ Fund issued the instant tax invoice was the largest director, the actual operator was the ○○○ Fund. ○○ Fund, which is a gold-do and retail business, actually operated the ○○ Fund, which is a corporation operating the gold-do and retail business, as well as the ○○ Fund, and the ○○○ Fund, which is a corporation, operated the ○○○ Fund and the ○○ Fund (the name of the corporation among the name of the business, omitted).

2) On January 25, 2005, on the grounds that he received or issued the processed tax invoice without a real transaction in the course of operating the above company, he received the processed tax invoice from the prosecutor's office and received fees of KRW 800-850 per money and received fees of KRW 900,000-950 per money. Of the sales office, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○, among the sales office, sold the past, but the other sales office issued the sales tax invoice after receiving fees without a real transaction. On February 25 of the same year, 2005, he stated that ○○, upon being investigated by a public official of the Seoul regional tax office about the actual status of the transaction of ○○, ○○, and ○○, ○○, and ○○, the remaining amount of the transaction in cash transferred from the Defendant's account.

3) On the other hand, ○○○ was indicted on February 4, 2005 and sentenced on December 15, 2002 from the Seoul Western District Court on July 22, 2002 to November 28, 2003, ○○○○ was issued a processing tax invoice under the fictitious purchase of the amount of KRW 164,638,896,150 for a total of 536 times from the purchaser of ○○○○, etc., as if he purchased the gold amount of KRW 165,083,02,02,70 in total over 3,730 times, and issued the processing tax invoice under the disguised sale of the gold amount of KRW 165,08,205, 205, 205, 2005, 205, 2005, 2005, 206, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2006, 7,2005 (1).

4) ○○○ World transferred KRW 40,944,70,000, which is the issue date of the instant tax invoice, to the bank account of the gold.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7, Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

(b)judgments

세금계산서 사실과 다른 허위의 것이라는 점에 대한 입증책임은 원칙적으로 과세관청인 피고에게 있는 것이므로 피고로서 이에 관하여 직접 증거 또는 제반 정황을 토대로 그 세금계산서가 실물거래를 동반하지 아니한 겻이라는 등의 허위 성에 관한입증을 하여야 할 것이다. 그러나 피고가 합리적으로 수긍할 수 있을 정도로 이 점에 관한 상당한 정도의 입증을 한 경우라면, 그 세금계산서가 허위가 아니라고 주장하면서 피고 처분의 위법성이 다투는 납세의무자인 원고로서도 관련된 증빙과 자료를 제실하기가 용이한 지위에 있음을 감안해 볼 때 자신의 주장에 부합하는 입증의 필요가 있다.

However, as seen earlier, insofar as the number of ○○ amount confirmed as data as a result of the tax investigation stated the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice in the course of the tax investigation, as long as the actual operator of ○○ amount was stated as a false tax invoice, it appears that the Defendant appears to have been proven to have been significantly different from the fact that the said tax invoice was a false tax invoice. The Plaintiff asserted that ○○ amount was actually purchased and sold from the Defendant. However, other than the fact that the Plaintiff did not present any data to prove that ○○ amount purchased from the bank account transfer, the Plaintiff did not sell or resell the current amount purchased from the bank account transfer, and then, ○○ amount was traded by means of cash refund, etc., after deducting the fee from the fee, in order to disguised the processing transaction. In light of the fact that ○○ amount was transferred from the date of issuance of the instant tax invoice to the bank account, the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to acknowledge it as a real transaction under the instant tax invoice.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the tax invoice of this case was received without real transaction, and the plaintiff's above assertion is also 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 Disposition.