logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2010. 05. 26. 선고 2009구합43758 판결
인정상여 처분에 따른 실질대표자[국승]
Case Number of the previous trial

Seocho 209west 1494 (Law No. 207. 20)

Title

(2) The actual representative subject to such action

Summary

The plaintiff asserted that it is merely a registration on the corporate register as the representative director of the corporation in the form of the corporate registry in order to recover loans to the corporation, but there is no evidence

The decision

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Text

1. The plaintiff's request is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim

"The defendant's imposition of global income tax of 249,264,240 won for the year 2004, global income tax of 162,182,830 won for the year 2005, global income tax of 322,693,900 won for the year 2006, global income tax of 2006, global income tax of 205,604,870 won for the year 207 shall be revoked (the date stated in the complaint shall be deemed to be a clerical error)," and the reasons shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

가. 주식회사 ☐☐☐☐드(2008. 2. 21. 주식회사 ☆☆☆☆팅으로 명칭이 변경됨, 이하 '소외 회사'라 한다)는 1992. 6. 30. 설립되었고, 원고는 2004. 2. 26 부터 2007. 5. 23.까지 그 대표이사로 재직한 것으로 법인등기부에 등재되어 있었다.

B. On February 28, 2008, through April 30 of the same year, the head of ○○ Tax Office investigated corporate tax on the non-party company from February 28 to April 30 of the same year, and confirmed the fact that the non-party company omitted a return on the sales amount of goods, rental amount, etc. from around 2003 to around 2007, or appropriated the purchase amount as processed. The non-party company corrected the value tax and corporate tax of the non-party company and notified the non-party company of the change on June 5, 2008, which was included in the non-party company’s income calculation (50,532,000 won omitted sales amount + 354,542,000 won omitted rental income + 2,030,04,000 won + value-added tax amount equivalent to value-added tax £« 243,515,715 won) as the representative director, which was the withholding agent on June 5, 2008.

C. The head of ○○○ Tax Office notified the Defendant that the non-party company did not pay the income tax from the above disposition of income as taxation data. On December 6, 2008, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of relevant data as global income tax for the year 2004, KRW 249,264,240, global income tax for the year 2004, KRW 162,182,830, global income tax for the year 2005, global income tax for the year 2006, KRW 322,693,90, global income tax for the year 2006, and KRW 205,604,870 for the global income tax for the year 207 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 6, 2009, but was dismissed on July 20, 2009.

[Ground for Recognition: there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-7, the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) 원고는 주식회사 △△△드(이하 '△△△드'라 한다)로부터 대여금 22억 원 상당을 변제받기 위하여 △△△드와 ☐☐ 전철 1호선 ◇◇역 환승통로 연쇄매장에 대한 관리 ・ 운영권을 양도받아 이를 운영한 수익금으로 대여금을 변제받은 다음 위 관리 ・ 운영권을 반환하기로 약정하였다

2) However, upon the transfer of the above management and operation rights in the name of the non-party company, the Plaintiff registered himself as the representative director of the non-party company on the corporate register, and operated the above chain store and recovered the total amount of the above loans. Accordingly, the Plaintiff registered him as the resignation from the representative director of the non-party company on the corporate register when returning the

3) Therefore, the plaintiff is merely listed in the corporate register as the representative director of the non-party company in the form of form, and since the actual representative director of the non-party company is △△, the defendant's disposition based on the premise that the plaintiff is the actual representative director

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Article 106 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619 of Feb. 22, 2008) provides that the system does not provide for the representative based on the fact that such income actually accrued to the representative, but provides for a certain fact recognized as an act in order to prevent an unfair act under tax law by a corporation to be considered as a bonus to a unconditional representative regardless of its substance. The purport of the system is that the representative shall be the representative who actually operates the company, and even if the representative is registered in the corporate register, the above recognized income shall not be imposed on the representative unless it actually operates the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu1176, Mar. 8, 1994; 9Nu3120, Jul. 14, 1992).

2) 이 사건에 돌아와 보건대, 갑 제3 내지 7호증, 을 제1. 2, 8, 9호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 2002. 6. 7 △△△드와 ☐☐ 전철 1호선 ◇◇역 5호선 환승통로 내 점포 207B(이하 '이 사건 점포'라 한다)에 관한 관리 ・ 운영권 양도양수계약을 체결한 사실, 소외 회사가 △△△드 로부터 이 사건 점포에 관한 관리 ・ 운영권을 양수한 다음 2003. 11. 6.경부터 이를 운영한 사실, 원고는 2004. 2. 26. 소외 회사의 대표이사로 취임한 사실, 소외 회사는 이 사건 점포의 운영수익금 등을 그 임직원인 김AA, 백BB, 최CC의 계좌에 입금하여 관리하면서 위 계좌들을 통하여 2004. 3. 22.부터 2007. 4. 19 까지 원고에게 매월 약 9,000만 원 합계 약 30억 원을 지급한 사실, 원고는 2007. 5. 23. 소외 회사의 대표이사에서 사임한 사실 등을 인정할 수 있으나, 위 인정사실만으로는 원고가 △△△드에 대한 대여금을 회수하기 위하여 형식상 소외 회사의 대표이사로 법인등기부상 등재된 것에 불과하다고 보기에는 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으며, 오히려 갑 제2호증, 을 제8, 9호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉,① 원고는 ○○세무서의 세무조사 과정에서 이 사건 점포를 운영하기 위하여 소외 회사를 인수한 다음 소외 회사 명의로 위 점포를 운영하였다고 인정한 점,② 원고는 실제로 2003. 11. 6 경부터 이 사건 점포를 운영하여 2004. 3. 22.부터 2007. 4. 19.까지 이 사건 점포의 운영수익 중 자신이 △△△드에 대여했다고 주장하는 약 22억 원을 초과한 약 30억 원을 지급받은 점,③ 원고가 이 사건 점포를 운영하기 시작할 무렵인 2003. 12.경, 소외 회사 발행 주식 1만 주 중 원고가 2,500주(25%), 원고의 아들 박GG가 2,000주(20%), 송DD이 2,500주(25%), 김EE, 강FF이 각 1,500주(15%)를 소유 하고 있었던 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고는 2004. 2. 26.경부터 2007. 5. 23까지 소외 회사의 경영을 사실상 지배한 대표자라고 봄이 상당하다

3) Accordingly, there is no reason for the plaintiff's letter of order.

3.In conclusion

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

arrow