Cho High 208 Mine108 (Occ. 13, 2008)

Whether it is a nominal representative director;

The fact that the representative director has actually failed to operate the company on the corporate register must be proved by the claimant, and it is legitimate to dispose of the bonus since there is no objective evidence of the assertion that he is the representative director on the corporate register.

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

Article 14 (Real Taxation under Framework Act on National Taxes)

Article 67 (Disposal of Income)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 173,178,980 against the Plaintiff on October 1, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. From October 22, 2003 to July 13, 2004, the Plaintiff changed its trade name to ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○○ Co., Ltd.”). The head office was transferred from ○○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○-○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ , which is under the jurisdiction of ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ; hereinafter “Nonindicted ○ ○ 3”)’s representative director. However, the head office of Gwangju Regional Tax Office recognized the Plaintiff’s processed tax invoice from 00 to 305.05 of the processed tax invoice issued and received the above processed tax invoice from 2006 to 13.505 of the processed tax invoice.

C. When the non-party company closes its business without fulfilling its withholding duty, the director of the ○○ Tax Office notified the defendant having jurisdiction over the plaintiff's domicile of the assessment data for notification of change of income amount. On October 1, 2007, the defendant notified the plaintiff of the amount of 173,178,980 won of global income tax for the year 2003 (hereinafter "the disposition of this case"). The plaintiff appealed against it and dismissed it on November 1, 2007, but the plaintiff appealed on March 6, 2008, and dismissed on June 13, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On February 2, 2003, the Plaintiff joined ○○○ Co., Ltd. and was in charge of civil affairs. On October 2003, the Plaintiff resigned from ○○○○ Co., Ltd., which was registered as the representative director immediately before the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the Nonparty Co., Ltd.; and Nonparty ○○○ Co., Ltd. and Nonparty ○○ who was actually in charge of the Nonparty Co., Ltd., demanded that the Plaintiff use the Plaintiff’s address that the Plaintiff had to continue to engage in the business for his livelihood and lent his name to Nonparty ○○ Co., Ltd. and Nonparty ○○ Co., Ltd. as the representative director of the Nonparty Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff was merely a nominal representative director who was not at all engaged in the management of the Nonparty Co., Ltd.,

B. Relevant statutes

Article 14 (Real Taxation under Framework Act on National Taxes)

Article 67 (Disposal of Income)

Article 106 (Disposition of Income)

C. Determination

Article 106 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act does not provide that the representative shall be deemed as a bonus to a unconditional representative regardless of substance with respect to certain facts recognized as such in order to prevent an unfair act under tax law by a corporation, rather than based on the fact that such income has accrued to the representative. The representative shall be a de facto manager of the company. Thus, even if the representative is registered in the corporate register even if the company was registered in the corporate register, such recognized income shall not be levied on the representative unless it is actually operated by the company. However, the representative shall be presumed that the person who is registered in the corporate register has actually been operating the company. Thus, the representative shall prove that the representative director has actually failed to operate the company.

As to whether the plaintiff was merely a nominal representative director who did not participate in the management of the corporation of this case, each statement of No. 7-1, 13-1, 6, 16-1, 2, and 16-1, 2, and witness testimony of No. 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 14 (including each number) are insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case premised on the non-party company's nominal representative director is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.