Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap17209 ( December 20, 2012)

Since the plaintiff seems to have actually failed to operate the company, the disposition to grant recognition shall be illegal.

Even if the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director on the corporate register, it seems that the Plaintiff did not actually operate the company. Thus, the disposition taken on the premise that the Plaintiff was the actual representative is unlawful.

Article 106(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

2013Nu3247 Global income and revocation of disposition

IsaA

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap17209 decided December 20, 2012

July 10, 2013

August 21, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of global income tax for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on August 4, 201 and global income tax for the year 2009 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the decision of this court as to the defendant's argument that is especially emphasized or re-emphasized by this court, since it is the same as the entry of the reasons in the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts to the purport that the disposition of this case is legitimate since it is deemed that the plaintiff was paid the income on June 15, 2010 and November 1, 2010 to the plaintiff registered as the representative director of BBtech pursuant to the proviso of Article 192 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22580, Dec. 20, 2010), and the tax payment obligation of the income tax to be withheld at that time is established and finalized simultaneously due to the legal fiction that the income on the notice was paid the pertinent income to the person to whom the income on the notice belongs, and the plaintiff must seek cancellation of the notification of the change in the income amount. Even if the disposition of this case was made thereafter, the above disposition of this case cannot assert the defect in the notification of the change in income amount unless there is an inevitable invalidity in the notification of the change in income amount. ② The plaintiff was the representative director of BBtech's corporate register, the plaintiff's receipt of the benefits from BBtech's representative in the tax investigation process of this case.

B. Determination

(1) As to the Defendant’s assertion

Even if income to be withheld is omitted, if the income tax is omitted, the income tax may be imposed on the income earner. If the additional amount of gross income leaked to an officer or employee is deemed reverted to the tax office, and if income is disposed of as a bonus, the income payer shall be liable to withhold from the date when the notice on change of income amount is served on the corporation. Unlike the case where the income payer is found to have been liable to withhold from the date when the notice on change of income amount was served on the corporation, if the income is disposed of as a bonus pursuant to the Corporate Tax Act under Article 20 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act, regardless of whether the notice on change of income amount was served on the corporation, the person to whom the income belongs is deemed to have been disposed of as a bonus, and the income amount is deemed to have the date when the labor was provided during the pertinent business year in which the tax disposition was imposed. Thus, the liability to pay global income tax is established when the taxable period to which the relevant income belongs expires pursuant to Article 21(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

As can be seen, unlike the notice of change in the amount of income to BBtech, a withholding agent cannot be deemed to have completed any impact on the existence or scope of the Plaintiff’s global income tax liability solely based on the notice of change in the amount of income itself. Thus, the notice of change in the amount of income cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that directly affects the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations. Rather, the notice of change in the amount of income cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that directly affects the Plaintiff’s global income tax liability as an act of the tax authority having a direct impact on the Plaintiff’s global income tax liability, which constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, and the defect in the notice of change in

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(2) As to the Defendant’s assertion

앞서 이 판결이 인용한 제1심 판결의 이유에서 채택한 증거와 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ㉠ 원고는 BB테크의 허위 세금계산서 발행・수취와 관련하여 수사기관에서 조사를 받을 때 일관하여 BB테크의 경영에 관여한 사실이 없고 고등학교 선배인 우CC, 박DD의 부탁을 받고 대표이사 명의만 빌려 준 것이라고 주장하고 있고 박DD, 우CC도 이에 부합하는 진술을 하였던 점, ㉡ 수사 검사 역시 원고가 BB테크의 실질 대표자임을 인정할 증거가 부족하다는 이유로 조세범처벌법 위반과 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)의 피의사실에 관하여 혐의없음 결정을 하였으나, 박DD에 대해서는 BB테크의 실질 경영자로 보고 조세범처벌법위반 피의사실에 대해 약식명령을 청구하였던 점, ㉢ BB테크가 2009. 3. 3. 종로세무서장에게 제출한 근로소득원천징수 영수증의 기재에 의하면, 원고가 2008. 5. 10.부터 2008. 12. 3l.까지 BB테크로부터 급여 OOOO원을 지급받기는 하였으나, 그 급여에서 근로소득공제, 기본공제, 국민연금보험공제, 보험료공제를 하여 결정된 근로소득세액은 0원인 것으로 되어 있고, BB테크나 원고의 통장 거래내역 기재에 의하더라도 위 기간에 원고가 BB테크로부터 매월 정기적으로 급여 명목의 돈을 지급받은 내역이 확인되지 아니하는 사정에 비추어, 원고가 그 무렵 BB테크로부터 급여를 지급받았다고 보기도 어려운 점, ㉣ 박DD의 동서로서 법인등기부상 BB테크의 이사로 등재된 이EE 역시 BB테크의 경영에 관여한 바가 없고 박DD로부터 부탁을 받고 명의만 이사로 등재하였을 뿐이라고 주장하고, 박DD, 우CC도 같은 취지로 진술하고 있는바, 이에 의하면 박DD, 우CC은 자선들이 실제 업무를 처리하면서 업무와 무관한 제3자를 법인등기부상 이사, 대표이사로 등재하는 방식으로 BB테크를 운영해 온 것으로 보이는 점, ㉤ 이에 따라 원고 명의의 금융 계좌는 우CC, 박DD가 운영하는 BB테크의 거래에 이용된 것으로 보이는 점, ㉥ 원고는 이 사건 세무조사 당시 자신 이 BB테크의 대표이사라고 답변하기는 하였으나, BB테크의 구체적인 영업을 묻는 질문에 관해서 제대로 답변하지 못하였는데, 이는 원고가 BB테크의 실제 경영에 관여하지 않았다는 사정을 추단케 하는 점 등을 종합하면, 원고가 비록 BB테크의 법인 등기부상 대표이사로 등재되어 있었다고 하더라도 실질적으로 BB테크를 운영하지 아니하였다고 봄이 타당하다,

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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