National Tax Service Review Corporation 2011-0042 ( November 17, 2011)

The disposition imposing corporate tax on the plaintiff who is a nominal representative director by designating the plaintiff as the second taxpayer is illegal.

Since the actual manager is a bad credit holder, and thus, the actual manager needs to externally represent the company, and the fact that the plaintiff is registered as a nominal representative director is confirmed through a letter of commitment and a certificate of actual manager's confirmation, the disposition that the plaintiff is deemed an oligopolistic stockholder and imposes corporate tax on the plaintiff as the secondary

2011Guhap2739 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax

XX

Head of Mapo Tax Office

May 30, 2012

June 22, 2012

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues shall be dismissed.

2. On June 21, 201, the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of the corporate tax accrued to the Plaintiff for the business year 2009, KRW 000 of the first interim prepayment tax accrued to the business year 2010, and KRW 000 of the second interim prepayment tax amount of the corporate tax is revoked.

3. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The disposition of imposition of KRW 00,00,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. "P (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") was delinquent in paying 00 won of corporate tax belonging to the business year 2009, 000 won of the first interim tax amount belonging to the business year 2010, and 200 won of the second interim tax amount belonging to the business year 2010," and "B. the defendant is an oligopolistic shareholder or representative of the non-party company holding 7,300 shares belonging to the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case") on June 21, 201, the plaintiff was designated as the second taxpayer of the above delinquent tax, and the plaintiff filed an objection against the 100 won of corporate tax belonging to the plaintiff's equity interest in the business year 2009 x 73% of the above delinquent tax amount x 100 won of the additional tax amount, 00 won of the second interim tax amount belonging to the corporate tax year 200, 2009, 209, 3009, 2000.7.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A 1, 2, 5, 8 (including paper numbers), and Category B 1 through 4

2. As to the claim to revoke the disposition imposing additional dues

With respect to the legitimacy of the above claim ex officio, the additional dues or increased additional dues as provided in Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Number Act (amended by Act No. 10527, Apr. 4, 2011) are naturally generated pursuant to the law without the final procedure of determination by the taxation office, since if national taxes are not paid by the payment deadline, a notice of additional dues or increased additional dues can not be deemed a disposition subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da15482, Jun. 10, 2005).

The above claim is unlawful.

3. As to the revocation of imposition of corporate tax

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since ParkA is the actual manager of the non-party company and the actual owner of the shares of this case, the imposition of corporate tax otherwise on the premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The determination of whether a company falls under an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010 in the case of corporate tax attributed to business year 2009; and in the case of corporate tax attributed to business year 2010, it shall be based on whether the company is a member of a group of ownership of a majority of shares. Specifically, even if there is no fact in the management of the company, it shall not be determined that the company is not an oligopolistic shareholder. The fact of ownership of shares shall be proved by the data such as the list of shareholders, detailed statement of stock transfer or corporate register, etc. If the tax authority proves to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, the actual shareholder cannot be deemed to fall under the shareholder merely under the name, but it shall be proved by the nominal shareholder who is not a shareholder (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du165365, Jul. 16, 2004).

(2) According to the facts that the Plaintiff returned to the instant case, Gap 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, Eul 4 through 8, and Eul 13.14, the Plaintiff reported 00 won to the non-party company's 10th of July 24, 2008 to July 15, 209, and 10th of October 7, 2010, the Plaintiff reported 100 won to the non-party company's 10th of October 7, 2010 to the 10th of October 10, 209 to the 10th of October 10, 201, and the 10th of October 10, 200 to the 1st of October 10, 209 to the 20th of October 10, 200 to the 1st of October 20, 201.

그러나 갑 제4, 6, 10호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 증인 박AA의 증언을 종합하면, 원고는 2009. 1. 28.부터 현재까지 주식회사 QQ건설에서 현장대리인으로 근무하고 있는 사실, 박AA는 자신의 명함에 소외 회사의 회장으로 기재하고 행사한 사실, 박AA는 신용불량자이기 때문에 대외적으로 회사를 대표할 자가 필요하여 김CC이나 원고를 명목상 대표이사로 하였고, 원고의 요구로 처인 안DD을 대표이사로 등기한 사실, 이에 따라 이 사건 주식의 양도과정에서 돈이 수수되지 아니한 사실, 박AA와 그의 처인 안DD은 2010. 10. 12. "박AA가 소외 회사의 실경영자(회장)로서 명의상 대표였던 원고의 재임기간 중 발생한 소외 회사의 금융대출금 채무에 대한 연대보증책임 및 제반공과금, 각종 세금미납분 등을 모두 책임지고, 소외 회사에 대한 채무 등이 원고에게 귀속되면 박AA가 원고에게 구상책임을 지며, 안DD은 이를 연대 보증한다"는 확약서를 작성한 사실, 박AA는 2011. 6. 30. "소외 회사의 실질적 경영자는 박AA이고 "이 사건 주식은 박AA의 소유이다"는 확인서를 작성한 사실, 박AA는 이 법원에서 "자신이 소외 회사의 실경영자이나 신용불량자이기 때문에 김CC, 원고 안DD을 명목상 대표이사로 등기하였다. 자신이 소외 회사 발행주식 전부의 실소 유자이고 이 사건 주식의 소유명의를 김CC, 원고, 안DD에게 차례로 신탁하였다. 대표이사 명의를 차용한 대가로 김CC, 원고에게 매월 급여 명목으로 000원을 지급하였다. 위 확약서 및 확인서에 서명하였다"고 증언한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 이러한 인정사실에 의하면, 박AA가 이 사건 주식의 소유자 겸 소외 회사의 경영자이므로 원고가 과점주주임을 전제로 한 법인세 부과처분은 위법하다.

4. Conclusion

If so, the request for revocation of the disposition of imposing additional dues is unlawful, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the request for revocation of disposition of corporate tax is reasonable.