Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap8515 (Law No. 19, 2011)

early 209 middle 1955 ( November 23, 2009)

The disposition that notified the change in the amount of income after disposing of the income whose attribution is unknown as bonus is illegal.

The disposition of the income not attributable to the plaintiff, which is not a representative on the corporate register but a person who actually controls the management of the corporation among the executives, such as shareholders meeting the requirements of Acts and subordinate statutes, shall be unlawful.

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

2011Nu21074 global income and revocation of such disposition

- Appellants

XX

Head of Nowon Tax Office

Head of the Office of Government

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap8515 decided May 19, 2011

March 9, 2012

April 13, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the director of the labor force or the director of the labor force or the director of the tax office shall be dismissed in entirety;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

A. The disposition of imposition of the global income tax of 000 won and the global income tax of 000 won for the year 2004, imposed on the Plaintiff on February 5, 2009 by the Head of the Labor Standards Tax Office shall be revoked.

B. On October 5, 2008, the head of the Defendant’s Government Tax Office’s disposition of notice of change in the income amount of KRW 000 and KRW 000, reverted to the year 2005 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant's labor union chief of the tax office shall be revoked. The judgment is the same as the claim(a).

B. Defendant’s Head of Government Tax Office

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant's government director shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant's government director shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's decision is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts among the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O up to the 7th page "from heading 1 to heading 9 of the same page" shall be followed as follows:

The term "executive officer or employee who is subject to the recognition prescribed in the main sentence (b) of subparagraph 1 and does not correspond to "representative in accordance with the disposition of income as prescribed in the proviso of the same subparagraph." Therefore, the plaintiff shall not be subject to the recognition of contributions and does not correspond to the representative in accordance with the disposition of income. Therefore, even though the plaintiff is presumed not to fall under the representative in accordance with the disposition of income, the plaintiff shall be deemed to be subject to the recognition of contributions and contributions as an executive officer or employee of the golf club, or on the premise that he falls under the representative in accordance with the disposition of income." "The defendant reversed the 13th of the same face, but the defendant reversed the 10th of the same face."

“The head of the Defendant’s Government Tax Office specified in the main sentence of Article 106(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, on the premise that the actual owner of KRW 000 out of the proceeds from the sale of each real estate of this case is the Plaintiff.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal against the chief of the labor union and the appeal by the chief of the defendant's government office are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.