The legitimacy of the assertion that the disposition was merely a representative on the corporate register and was actually an employee.

The Plaintiff’s share does not constitute 1%, and the Intervenor exclusively takes charge of the financing and management. If the Intervenor’s order before his retirement excluded entirely from the approval line with the Intervenor, it is reasonable to deem that the Intervenor was in the position of “president of Employment” in charge of the work related to the construction, who was employed by the Nonparty Company or the Intervenor, and received benefits from the Nonparty Company or the Intervenor.

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 394,520 on May 1, 2006 and global income tax of KRW 8,125,480 on global income belonging to the year 199 and the year 200 shall be revoked.

2. The supplementary part of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Intervenor, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Construction Co., Ltd.”) was established on March 16, 1981 for the purpose of construction business, water supply and drainage and landscaping business, and the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director in the corporate register of the non-party company from September 6, 1989 to August 29, 2002.

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the non-party company’s secondary supply price of KRW 5,300,000, and the purchase tax invoice of KRW 19,745,000, which was received from ○ Construction Co., Ltd. in 1999, and the purchase tax invoice of KRW 25,045,00 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) received without real transaction, as the processing tax invoice received without real transaction; and (b) imposed value-added tax and corporate tax on the non-party company upon the non-party company by not deducting the input tax and non-deductible tax; and (c) imposed value-added tax and corporate tax on the non-party company on May 1, 2006 upon the Plaintiff, who is the representative director of the non-party company, as the global income tax of KRW 394,520, and global income tax of KRW 8,125,480 for the year 200.

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition on July 4, 2006, but was dismissed on August 17, 2006, and again filed a request for examination on August 29, 2006, but was dismissed on November 20, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1 to 6, Eul evidence 2-7, and the whole purport of pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director on the corporate register of the non-party company, in fact, the non-party company was merely an employee who received benefits while taking charge of the management and bidding at the construction site of the non-party company, and the affairs of receiving orders, and the person who actually controls and operates the non-party company should be imposed global income tax on the non-party company. However, the disposition of this case imposing

(b) Related statutes;

【National Tax Basic Act

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

(1) If the ownership of the income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the tax-related Acts shall apply to such person to whom it actually belongs as a taxpayer.

m. Corporate Tax Act

Article 67 (Disposition of Income)

In filing a report on the corporate tax base on the income for each business year under the provisions of Article 60 or in determining or revising the corporate tax base under the provisions of Article 66 or 69, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company, internal reserve, etc. according to the person to whom it reverts

【Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 106 (Disposition of Income)

(1) The amount included in the calculation of earnings under the provisions of Article 67 of the Act shall be disposed of under the provisions of the following subparagraphs. The same shall apply to non-profit domestic corporations

1. Where the amount included in the calculation of earnings has clearly leaked out of the company, the dividends, bonuses from the disposition of profits, other income, and other outflow from the company under each of the following items according to the person to whom they accrue: Provided, That where the accrual is unclear, it shall be deemed as accrual to the representative (where the total number of stocks held by an officer who is not a minority shareholder under the provisions of Article 87 (2) and by a person with a special relationship under the provisions of paragraph (4) of the same Article is 30% or more of the total number of stocks issued or total investment amount of the relevant corporation and the officer actually controls the operation of the corporation, he shall be deemed the representative, and where a corporation which has been exempted from withholding taxes under the provisions of Article 46 (12) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act reports that there is a separate representative among the officers who are stockholders, etc., the reported person shall be the representative, and where there

(a) Where the person to whom benefits accrue is a stockholder, etc. (excluding a stockholder, etc. who is an executive officer or employee), the dividends to such person;

(b) If the person to whom it belongs is an officer or employee, the bonus to the person to whom it reverts;

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each testimony of Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 11-2, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-1, 3, Eul evidence 5-6, witness's old evidence 0, 2-1, 3, 2-2, and 5-6, witness's old evidence 0, 3-2, and 3-2.

(i) From September 6, 1989 to July 7, 1992, the plaintiff was registered as the joint representative director of the non-party company, from that date to October 3, 200, as the sole representative director, from October 4, 200 to that of October 4, 200, as the supplementary representative director, and as the separate representative director, from that of the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the " supplementary participant") and the separate representative director, the plaintiff resigned from that of August 29, 200. Meanwhile, the supplementary intervenor was registered as the director of the non-party company on July 10, 1984, as the representative director on January 15, 1985, and the supplementary intervenor was registered as the representative director on February 2, 1985, and the representative director again was registered as the plaintiff and the representative director on October 4, 200, respectively, and the plaintiff resigned from that office on October 29, 2002.

The total number of the shares issued by the non-party company Luxembourg held 50,000 shares, 55,000 shares from 2000 to 2001, and 70,000 shares from 202 to 2003. The plaintiff only held shares amounting to 0.99% of the total number of shares issued during the period from 1999 to 2003. On the other hand, the supplementary intervenor held 74.26% of the total number of shares issued during the period from 1999 to 2002, and 10% of the total number of shares issued during the same period, and 23.77% of the total number of shares issued by the supplementary intervenor. The ratio of shares owned by the supplementary intervenor was reduced to 40% in 203.

Secondly, the Plaintiff, from the viewpoint of civil engineering engineer, was named as the president within the company, and was in charge of the overall affairs concerning the construction, such as the selection of subcontractors, determination of the subcontract amount, field management, etc. excluding the financing and management, and the supplementary intervenor was named as the “chairperson,” and the supplementary intervenor was in charge of the financing and management as the final approving authority. In this regard, the supplementary intervenor directly kept and managed the corporate seal and the corporate account seal.

x) The Plaintiff received benefits of KRW 2.5 million per month from the non-party company in 1995, KRW 2.5 million per month in 296, KRW 2.5 million per month in 296, and KRW 3.5 million per month in 198.

(v) From the last half of 2001, the Intervenor was employed by the Plaintiff as to whether the president of the instant post office would have been ageed and there was a rest time for the Plaintiff. From that time, the Intervenor was instructed by the employees to put the approval to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

According to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 (1) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, where it is obvious that the amount included in the calculation of the corporate tax has been leaked out of the company, it shall be disposed of as bonus, dividend, etc. according to the person to whom it belongs, but where it is unclear, it shall be deemed that it has been reverted to the representative. If an executive who holds not less than 30/10 of the total number of issued stocks or total amount invested by the corporation actually controls the operation of the corporation, he shall be deemed as the representative and he shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative, and

Although the plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the non-party company from September 6, 1989 to August 29, 2002, and was in charge of the affairs related to the corporation, most of the outstanding shares of the non-party company was owned by the supplementary intervenor and his wife, and the plaintiff's share did not exceed 1%, and the supplementary intervenor was in charge of the financing and management. The supplementary intervenor was entirely in charge of the financing and management before his retirement, and the supplementary intervenor was also in charge of the affairs related to the corporation, if the supplementary intervenor actually controlled the management of the non-party company as an executive officer who owns more than 30% of the total number of issued shares, and the plaintiff was employed by the non-party company or the supplementary intervenor and was in charge of the affairs related to the corporation.

Therefore, even though the supplementary intervenor should be disposed of as a result of the recognition of the supply value in the tax invoice of this case, the disposition of this case that imposed the comprehensive income tax on the plaintiff by disposing of the income to the plaintiff is unlawful.

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.