Whether it is merely a representative in name or not.

However, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was involved in the management of the company, although he/she is merely a nominal representative with regard to the taxation of the company's recognition.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On August 7, 2009, the Defendant confirmed that each imposition of KRW 16,358,180, resident tax, KRW 1,684,880, and KRW 702,180, and KRW 72,310, imposed on the Plaintiff in 2006 against the Plaintiff is null and void.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. AA Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "AA Engineering") is a company established for the purpose of engaging in the manufacture and sale of main supplies in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government DD 1603-5, and the Plaintiff is registered as the representative director of AA Engineering from June 29, 2002 to June 29, 2002.

B. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on the corporate tax and value-added tax of AA Engineering, the director of the tax office North Busan District Tax Office found the omission of the sales of non-data and the sales, and found the sales to be included in the gross income in calculating the income amount for each business year, and, at the same time, disclosed the amount of which was included in the calculation of the income amount for the business year, but it was unclear to vest, and notified the Defendant of the amount of KRW 73,780,300, the total sum of the sales amount and the value-added tax amount for the business year 2007 as the bonus for the Plaintiff, and then notified

C. On August 7, 2009, the Defendant imposed global income tax of 16,358,180 won, resident tax of 1,684,880 won, global income tax of 2007, global income tax of 702,180 won, resident tax of 72,310 won, and resident tax of 72,310 won (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-1-4, Eul evidence 1-2-1 and 2-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is allowed to use the name at the request of the non-party ParkB, the actual manager of the AA engineering, and only is registered as the representative director on the corporate register of the company of this case, and there is no participation in the management of AA engineering, and the disposition of this case against the plaintiff, which is merely a representative on the corporate register of the company

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) AAA Engineering is about 40 employees, the location of which is about 1603-5, Busan Gangseo-gu DDdong 1603-5, the location of which is about 20 employees, the location of which is about 1603-5, Busan Gangseo-gu DDdong 1603-5, the location of the two companies was the same as the location of the above two companies, the office used the same building, and both the ParkBB, the plaintiff, and the factory manager are serving in the second floor.

(2) The AA Engineering was established on June 5, 199, and theCC Metal Co., Ltd. was established on May 3, 2002. The Plaintiff stated that the AA Engineering was established in the overdue wages-related case that the Plaintiff is acting as a representative director from the date of establishment, and that the director of theCC Metal Co., Ltd is also in charge of the director's duties.

(3) The Plaintiff obtained the income of KRW 25,040,00 from AA engineering in 2007, and paid the labor income tax on this basis and year-end tax settlement.

[Reasons for Recognition] The aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the testimony of the witness Kim E-E, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) The following circumstances revealed by the above fact of recognition, i.e., the Plaintiff’s representative director of the AA engineering and the director of theCC metal corporation, as the relative district of ParkB, were registered as the director of the AA engineering corporation, and the Plaintiff was working in the second floor office separate from the general employees of the AA engineering, and was at the same time different from the working place and was at the same time known with the above company’s management situation. In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff participated in the management of the AA engineering. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’

(2) Even though the Plaintiff’s domestic affairs are merely a representative who permitted only the use of the name without involvement in the management of AA engineering, the fact that the disposition of this case was unlawful for the purpose of making the disposition null and void as a matter of course is insufficient, and the defect must be objectively and objectively deemed unlawful and objectively in important laws and regulations.

In light of the above, a taxation disposition made on a person who does not have any legal relation or factual relations subject to taxation should be deemed to be significant and apparent, but in a case where there are objective circumstances that could mislead the plaintiff to be subject to taxation with respect to any legal relation or factual relations which are not subject to taxation, if it can only be identified in the accurate investigation of the factual relations, the determination of whether it is subject to taxation cannot be deemed to be apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da24986, Jul. 10, 201). As seen earlier, the fact that the plaintiff was registered as the representative director of AA Engineering, and thus, it cannot be deemed null and void even if the instant disposition imposed on the plaintiff, which was externally unlawful. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion is groundless and void.

3. Conclusion

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