Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap698 ( October 12, 2012)

National Tax Service Review Income 201-0094 ( November 08, 2011)

According to various circumstances, since the Plaintiff appears to be a nominal representative, the initial taxation disposition is unlawful.

(1) As indicated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the Plaintiff’s taxation disposition is unlawful as the name of the non-party company’s nominal representative in light of the following: (a) the organization of executive officers of the company; (b) the statement of the persons concerned; and (c) the registration of the representative director in the form and the management of the real estate; and (c) the Plaintiff

2012Nu3458 Global income and revocation of disposition

Park AAA

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap6698 decided October 12, 2012

April 4, 2013

April 25, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 on December 2, 2010 against the Plaintiff on December 2, 2010 is revoked (it appears that penalty tax is included in the recorded tax amount).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

이 법원이 이 판결에서 설시할 이유는，① 제1심 판결문 중，㉮ 제2쪽 제6행의 2012. 12. 2. 부분을 2010. 12. 2. 로，㉯ 제4쪽 제21행의 "윤OO"을 "윤OO"로，㉰ 제4쪽 제25행의 "검OO의 소외 회사의" 부분을 "김OO은 소외 회사의"로 각 고쳐 쓰고，② 아래 "제2항"에서 피고의 주장에 관한 판단을 추가하는 이외에는 제1심 판결의 이유 기재와 같으므로， 행정소송법 제8조 제2항， 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 인용한다.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's argument

The representative director on the corporate register can be presumed to be the actual operator, and the representative director on the register such as the plaintiff must prove the fact that the representative director on the register of the plaintiff did not actually operate the company, and although the actual operator of the non-party company (OOO construction of the non-party company) is not the plaintiff but the non-party company's employee's confirmation of the fact that the non-party company's employee's "Glab" is not the plaintiff, it is not high credibility due to the statement of the person who engages in the business for a long time with the plaintiff, and there is no objective and specific evidence proving that the non-party company is not the actual representative of the non-party company but the non-party company, and the non-party company's judgment

B. Determination

(1) The system of recognizing and recognizing a representative for the disposal of income under the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302 of Feb. 4, 2009), which applies to the disposition of this case, is not based on the facts from which such income occurred to the representative, but rather on the specific facts which can be recognized as such act in order to prevent any unlawful act under the tax law by a juristic person, so the representative of the juristic person which is subject to bonus disposition, regardless of its substance, shall be considered as a bonus for a non-conditional representative, and in such a case, it shall be strictly interpreted that the representative of the juristic person which is subject to bonus disposition is driving away on its face (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu3120, Jul. 14, 1992; 2010Du1108, Oct. 28, 2010).

(2) However, in light of the above facts cited in the above evidence, (i) the 2nd executive officer of the company, and (ii) the 2nd executive officer of the company established so-called 'non-party 1' in the above facts, including the non-party 2, and (iii) the 1st executive officer of the company, and the 2nd executive officer of the company, who was prosecuted for the defendant's case, such as fraud (Evidence 16), and the 2nd executive officer of the company, was found guilty. According to the facts charged, the 16th executive officer of the company, and the 2nd executive officer of the company, who was found to have been found to have been in charge of the company's management by the 1st executive officer of the company, and the 2nd executive officer of the company, the 1st executive officer of the company, who was found to have been found to have been in the name of the 1st executive officer of the company, and the 2nd executive officer of the company, the 2nd executive officer of the company's Kim.

(3) Ultimately, the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate on the premise that the plaintiff is the person who actually operated the non-party company from December 20, 2007.

3. Conclusion

If so, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.