Early High Court Decision 2012J 3127 (No. 20, 2012)

It is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff is merely a representative in the name of the Plaintiff and there is no evidence to admit.

The instant tax invoice constitutes a processing tax invoice issued without a real transaction, and it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff merely was the representative under the name of BB Construction and did not exercise the substantial power of representation, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

2012Guhap6074 global income and revocation of disposition

KoreaAAA

the director of the tax office of Western

April 25, 2013

May 30, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 and global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2007 against the Plaintiff on December 5, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BB Construction”) was established on April 13, 2007 at Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, the main office of which was 00, and for the purpose of reinforced concrete construction business, etc., and was dissolved on December 3, 2012, and the corporate register was registered as the representative director from the date of establishment to the date of dissolution.

B. BB Construction received the purchase tax invoice in 200 won in total fromCC Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC Construction”) during the second taxable period in 2007, and the purchase tax invoice in 2000 won (hereinafter “DD case”) in total from DDR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DDR”) during the first taxable period in 2008, and reported the corporate tax base and tax amount for each taxable year, including the above purchase amount in deductible expenses.

C. The head of the Dongjak Tax Office and the head of the Geumcheon Tax Office, who conducted a data-based investigation onCC Construction and DD cases, judged that the instant tax invoice was a processed tax invoice received without real transaction and notified the Defendant, and the Defendant corrected corporate tax against BB construction, disposed of the said supply price as a bonus to the Plaintiff, the representative director of BB Construction, and notified the Plaintiff of the rectification and notification of the global income tax amount of KRW 000 and the global income tax amount of KRW 000 for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 2, 2012, but on July 2, 2012

9. 20. 20 The dismissal ruling was rendered.

[Based on Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 7 through 16 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant tax invoice is unlawful inasmuch as the instant tax invoice is the genuine tax invoice that BB Construction was actually traded and delivered withCC Construction and DD cases, and the instant disposition premised upon that it was a processed tax invoice.

2) Even if the instant tax invoice is a processed tax invoice and the company funds leaked out of the company, the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband ○○, and the Plaintiff only lent the name of the representative director, and thus, it was unlawful to make the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, not the person to whom the aforementioned amount of outflow was attributed.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice is a processed tax invoice issued without a real transaction

According to the above evidence, it is acknowledged that the OB construction and DD construction were established on the data that issued the processed tax invoice without any material transaction, and that the BB construction remitted the amount equivalent to the value of the supply under the tax invoice of this case to the CC Construction or DD bank account, which was returned to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff and the EE bank account. In addition, the records and arguments of this case are as follows. In other words, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was transferred money to a middle company upon the CC Construction or DD request, but the BB construction did not have any objective material to prove that it was transferred to the middle company, and that the BB construction received the tax invoice of this case on August 3, 2009 on the premise that the tax invoice of this case was processed, and that the request for pre-taxation review received from the CC Construction was rejected, and that the Plaintiff did not receive the tax invoice of this case without any objection, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation that the tax invoice of this case was not received.

2) Whether the Plaintiff is not the actual representative of BB Construction

According to the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619, Feb. 2, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20619; Presidential Decree No. 21302, Feb. 4, 2009) as to the representative under Article 106 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302, the same shall apply hereinafter), the purpose of this system is to ensure that the representative is not based on the facts from which such income was generated, and that certain facts which can be recognized as such in order to prevent unfair conduct under tax laws by corporations are considered as bonus regardless of substance, and that the representative is actually operating the company, even if the representative is registered as the representative on the corporate register of the company, if it is difficult for the Plaintiff to use these facts as the former Enforcement Decree No. 2061, Dec. 12, 1988, the Plaintiff could not be found to have accrued income of the company, and if so, it appears to have been recorded as the representative’s 201).

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

3. Conclusion

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