Seocho 208west 4185 (2009.03.09)

Appropriateness of the assertion that the person is a simple nominal lender who does not participate in management

It is reasonable to view it as the real representative director in view of the fact that the income tax imposed by the disposition of income is the representative director in the name of the representative director, but directly signed and approved the documents on the incorporation, that the officer received a business performance report from the officer, and that the employee

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 235,755,230 on October 17, 2008 against the Plaintiff on October 17, 2008 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. △△ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) was established on February 14, 2006, and was registered as the representative director in the corporate register of the non-party company from the time of incorporation of the non-party company until September 22, 2006.

B. As a result of the tax investigation with respect to the non-party company, the director of the regional tax office of 006 confirmed that the non-party company omitted the report of sales in the year of 2006 or appropriated the expenses as the processing, etc., and corrected the corporate tax of the non-party company by adding the non-party company to the inclusion of earnings and non-deductible expenses, while correcting the corporate tax of the non-party company from the inclusion of earnings and non-deductible expenses, among the 1,786,662,00 won, which was confirmed to have been released from the above inclusion of earnings and non-deductible expenses, the amount of KRW 587,340,950 (hereinafter referred

C. Based on the above taxation data on October 17, 2008, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 235,755,230 of the global income tax for the year 2006 by adding the amount of the recognized bonus in this case to the amount of the Plaintiff’s earned income in 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On December 17, 2006, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on March 9, 2009.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 8, Eul 1 through 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case against the plaintiff, which is merely a nominal representative director, is unlawful, since the plaintiff was registered as the representative director on the corporate register only formally upon the request of the chairperson of the association of the non-party company who actually operated the non-party company, which is the planning real estate company, and was actually operated by the non-party company.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 106 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19891 of Feb. 28, 2007) does not provide the representative with the basis of the facts from which such income was generated, but rather provides that certain facts which can be recognized as such act in order to prevent an unfair act under tax law by a corporation shall be deemed as a bonus to a unconditional representative regardless of its substance. The representative shall be a de facto operating representative of the company. Thus, even if the representative is registered in the corporate register of the company, if there is no substantial operation of the company, such recognized income shall not be imposed on the representative.

However, since a person who is registered as a representative on the corporate register can be presumed to be actually operating the company, the claimant must prove that the representative on the corporate register actually failed to operate the company, and unless the representative on the corporate register proves that the amount belongs to the amount included in the gross income, he/she is liable to pay income tax regardless of whether it actually reverts to himself/herself or not.

(2) Therefore, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the witness witness’s testimony, is insufficient to recognize only the Gangwon AA of the non-party company as the actual representative of the non-party company, and there is no other evidence to support that the amount of the instant recognition bonus belongs to the non-party company, and there is no evidence to support that the amount of the instant recognition bonus belongs to other persons than the plaintiff, such as the Gangwon A, etc.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 3 through 5, No. 39, and No. 5 through 12 (including each number), and witnessB’s testimony, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the company’s corporate register from February 14, 2006 to September 22, 2006, and was paid 40% (4,000 shares) out of the shares issued by the Nonparty Company’s company to Nonparty 6’s representative director, and the Plaintiff was merely an employee of Nonparty 1’s company’s company’s company’s company’s company’s title-related company’s company’s company’s title-related company’s company’s company’s investment in the company’s company’s company’s name-related company’s name-related company’s name-related company’s investment in the company’s name-related company’s name-related company’s investment in the company’s company’s name-related company’s name-related company’s investment in the company’s name.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff is the nominal representative director of the Nonparty Company is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed without reason.