Whether the bonus disposition made to the representative director appointed by the court is legitimate

The representative director acting on behalf of the court due to a provisional disposition suspending the execution of his duties can not be regarded as the representative of a juristic person merely because the authority is the execution assistant of such provisional disposition

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

Whether the representative director appointed by the court falls under the representative of the corporation that is disposed of as a result of the recognition under the Corporate Tax Act

The representative director of a corporation appointed by the court's decision to suspend the execution of duties is based on the order to appoint an agent, and the exercise of his authority is nothing more than that of the execution assistant of the pertinent order of provisional disposition. Thus, barring special circumstances such as substantial operation of the corporation, he cannot be deemed as the representative of the corporation disposed of as an accepted contribution under the Corporate Tax Act.

Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 94-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1238 decided Apr. 12, 1988 (Gong1988, 859) and 92Nu3120 decided Jul. 14, 1992 (Gong192, 2454)

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 110,448,70 of global income tax for the year 190 against the Plaintiff on April 8, 1992 and KRW 22,243,910 of its defense tax shall be revoked. 2. The litigation cost shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Details of the instant disposition;

갑 제1호증, 제2호증의 1,2, 제3호증, 을 제1호증의 1,2의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 변호사로서 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 소재 ㅇㅇ빌딩에서 법률사무소를 개설하고 있었는데 1990.5.25. ㅇㅇ지방법원 90카691 직무집행정지가처분사건의 결정에 의하여 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ 2동 687의 21 소재 소외 주식회사 ㅇㅇ(이하 소외 회사라 한다)의 이사 겸 대표이사의 직무대행자로 선임되어 같은 해 10.15. 위 직을 사임할 때까지 그 업무에 종사한 사실, 피고는 소외 회사에 대한 1990. 사업연도 법인세를 조사하면서 공사원가 중 재료비 금 741,815,205원이 가공원가임을 발견하고 위 금액을 익금에 산입함과 동시에 그 금액이 사외에 유출되어 귀속이 불분명하므로 법인세법 제32조, 같은법시행령 제94조의2 제1항 제1호에 의하여 귀속자별로 소득처분을 하기로 하고 원고가 대표이사 직무대행자로 재직한 기간에 따라 안분계산한 금 186,978,079원을 원고에게 상여처분하여 1990년도 원고의 다른 소득에 위 금액을 가산하여 별지 세액계산명세서 기재와 같이 종합소득세액을 산출하고 1992.4.8. 원고에 대하여 주문기재와 같은 이 사건 종합소득세 및 그 방위세를 추가 고지한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

2. Whether the instant disposition is appropriate;

In regard to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and the relevant statutes, the plaintiff's representative director who is appointed by the court's decision on the provisional disposition of suspension of duty cannot be deemed as the representative of the legal entity who is the person subject to recognition under the Corporate Tax Act. Furthermore, the plaintiff's failure to receive the business and assets transfer from the former representative director and actually failed to operate the non-party legal entity, so the plaintiff cannot be deemed as the representative of the legal entity who is the person subject to the above recognition. However, the plaintiff's disposition of this case,

Therefore, according to Article 94-2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, when determining or correcting the corporate tax base, the amount of which attribution is unclear out of the total amount of earnings shall be deemed to be reverted to the representative. Thus, the recognition contribution system of the representative under the Corporate Tax Act is not based on the fact that such income has accrued to the representative, but it is intended to have certain facts recognized as a result of such act be deemed as a bonus to a de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is justified because the disposition of this case was unlawful, it shall be accepted, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant who has lost, as the case is decided as per Disposition (attached Form omitted).