early 2011west0412 ( October 27, 2011)

Since it did not meet the requirements deemed as a representative or stockholder under the Corporate Tax Act, the bonus disposition is illegal.

Since the plaintiff is registered as a representative on the corporate register or does not meet the requirements as a shareholder who can be deemed as a representative on the corporate register, the disposition of bonus based on the premise that the plaintiff is a representative is illegal.

2012Guhap3125 global income and revocation of disposition

The AA

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

June 13, 2012

July 27, 2012

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00 of global income tax for the Plaintiff, and KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2005, and global income tax for the year 2006, and imposition of KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2007, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. BBN Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'B') is established on January 24, 2003, and on September 2007.

30. Ex officio discontinuance of business.

B. The defendant issued processed sales tax invoices of KRW 00,00, and received processed sales tax invoices of KRW 000 during the value-added tax period from the second to the first half of 2005 in 2007, and the actual representative of the company outside the lawsuit is the plaintiff, and disposed of the difference between the corporate tax estimate and the net income tax base calculated based on the processed sales, purchase amount, etc., as bonus to the plaintiff, and made each disposition listed in Paragraph 1 of the disposition against the plaintiff (hereinafter "the disposition in this case").

C. On January 6, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on October 27, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The non-party company's employee is not a real representative, and the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 106(1)1 proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22951, Jun. 3, 201) provides that the upper limit on the recognition of a representative for disposal of income pursuant to the proviso to Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall not be based on the fact that such income has accrued to the representative, but shall be deemed as a bonus to the representative without any relationship with the substance of the corporation for a specific fact which can be recognized as an act in order to prevent any unlawful act under tax law. In such a case, the representative of the corporation subject to disposal of bonus shall be construed as a strict interpretation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu3120, Jul. 14, 1992). The proviso to Article 106(1)1 of the said Enforcement Decree provides that "where an executive is not deemed as a representative, the representative shall be deemed as belonging to the representative, and where an executive or a person actually related to the corporation is not less than 30 percent of the total number issued stocks."

[Reference]

(2) 돌이켜 이 사건을 보건대， 갑 제4호증， 을 제7호증의 각 기재， 증인 백CC의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면， 소외 회사의 주주는 2005년도에 김DD(40%)， 김EE(20%)， 정FF(20%)， 김GG(20%)으로， 2006년도에 김EE(20%)， 정FF(20%)， 김HH(20%)， 하II(40%)으로 되어 있는 사실， 소외 회사의 2005년부터 2007년까지 법인등기부상에 대표이사는 김EE(2005년부터 2006년까지)， 박JJ(2006년)， 하II (2006년부터 2007년까지)， 김KK(2007년)로， 이사는 김DD(2005부터 2007년까지)， 김EE(2005년부터 )， 김 GG(2005년부터 2007년까지 )， 박JJ(2006년)， 방LL (2006년)， 송MM(2005년)， 이NN(2005년)， 전PP(2006년)， 채QQ(2005년)， 하II(2006년부터 2007년까지)， 김KK(2007년)로 각 등재되어 있는 사실， 소외 회사는 건물의 배관， 기계실， 보일러실， 사우나 등의 설비설치 영업을 하는 법인이나， 사실은 설비면허가 없는 개인 사업주들이 소외 회사 명의로 수주하되 수주액 중 3-5%를 운영비로 납부하고(소 외 회사의 업무를 담당하는 사업주는 3%，그 외 소외 회사 명의만 사용하는 사업주는 5%를 납부한다. 부가가치세를 포함할 경우 납부액은 13-15%에 이른다J， 박JJ과 백 CC은 소외 회사의 대표로 회계처리의 업무를 처리해 온 사실(다만， 백CC은 신용불량자이기 때문에 김EE을 대표이사로 법인등기부에 등재하였다)， 원고는 소외 회사 명의로 수주를 하였고，소외 회사의 회계 등을 담당하여 수주액 중 3%를 운영비로 납부해 온 사실을 인정할 수 있고， 이에 어긋나는 을 제4， 5호증의 각 기재는 믿기 어려우며，달리 반증이 없다. 위 인정사실에 의하면， 원고는 법인등기부상 대표자로 등재되어 있는 자이거나， 괄호 안의 주주 등인 임원으로서의 요건(주주 중 정FF이 원고의 딸이 나， 주식지분율이 20%에 불과하다)을 갖추지 못하였으므로(사실상 지배하고 있었다고 볼 수도 없다)， 위 규정에서 말하는 대표자에 해당하지 아니한다. 따라서 원고가 법인세법 시행령(2011. 6. 3.대통령령 제22951호로 개정되기

The instant disposition based on the premise that it is the representative prescribed in the proviso of Article 106(1)1 is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.