early 2012,0077 (2012.05.02)

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.

2012Guhap17209 global income and revocation of disposition

XX

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

November 13, 2012

December 20, 2012

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2008 and KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on August 4, 201 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a result of the investigation conducted between September 9, 2009 and October 28, 2009 against the recipient of the data during the value-added tax period from 1 to 1, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "tax investigation of this case"), the head of the Guro Tax Office confirmed that data merchants received false tax invoices from the O industry, etc. during the value-added tax period from 2008 to 1, 2010, and determined the estimated corporate tax for the business year 2008, 2009, and notified the Defendant of the aggregate of the amount of the notification of the disposal and change of income (00 won for the year 2008, 2009, 2000 won for the taxation data).

B. On August 4, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the foregoing taxation data, and determined and notified the global income tax of 000 won for the year 2008 and global income tax of 000 won for the year 2009. However, upon correcting errors in the period during which the Plaintiff served as the representative director under XX (from August 29, 2008 to September 29, 2009), the Defendant issued a reduction in the amount of the notice of change in the amount of the disposition and the notice of change in the amount of the income to the representative, and made correction (the amount of KRW 00 for the year 2008 and the amount of KRW 00 for the global income tax of 2000 for the year 2008 and KRW 00 for the global income tax of 2009 as above).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Seoul Regional Tax Office on November 28, 201 after filing an objection (Dismissal Order October 14, 201), but filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 28, 201, but was dismissed on May 2, 2012, and filed the instant lawsuit on May 29, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4 evidence, Eul 1, 2 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff only lent the name of the representative director upon the request of ParkB and DoB, who is the actual manager of XX, and only lent the name of the representative director at the request of the head of the P, and the customer of the P does not receive monthly wage from the P, and the customer of the P is also recognized as the actual manager of the P.B and ParkB as well as the P.B and ParkB as the actual manager of the P. In relation to the instant disposition, the tax authorities filed an accusation against the Plaintiff on suspicion of violation of the Tax Evaders Act, etc., but the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office filed an accusation against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was not the actual representative of the P, and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual representative of the P.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) XX is a corporation that voluntarily closes its business on May 10, 2008 with wholesale, business category as synthetic resin or petroleum chemical and voluntarily closes its business on April 19, 2010, and the power of its representative changes are as follows:

2) around May 2008, LA and LB acquired 10,000 shares issued in XX 000 won from YellowCC. Of the total shares acquired, 40% of LAA and 60% of the total shares acquired were borne by LAB, respectively. As of September 15, 2009, the current status of shares held in XX is as follows.

3) Park Jae-B and ParkB were raising a business fund by means of borrowing cash from the Plaintiff or using credit cards in the name of the Plaintiff. Among them, interest was repaid by means of deposit in the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, and approximately KRW 000 of the principal amount was still in default, and the sales revenue in XX was distributed to the PB and ParkB according to the sales ratio.

4) At the time of the instant tax investigation, the Plaintiff made a statement to the tax official that the Plaintiff is the representative director of Tex, who is not at the time of the instant tax investigation, on July 1, 2008, stating that the Plaintiff is performing the overall business management of the company, the confirmation of sampling raw materials, and the management of subordinate companies from July 1, 2008, as the representative of EB. The Plaintiff also made a statement to the effect that the Plaintiff is performing the overall business management of the company as the representative director of XX. However, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that the business management officer’s question about the specific business content of E is difficult to respond to the part of E.

5) As a result of the instant tax investigation, termination tax investigation: (i) on the ground that the sum of the supply values of the second-term purchase tax invoices in 2008, 00 won received from Y and one company Y and 1 companies, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the prosecution against the violation of Article 11(4) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; (ii) on the ground that the Plaintiff and ParkA receives 64 copies of the purchase tax invoices from the processing company, and then unfairly deducts value-added tax KRW 00 upon receiving 00,000 from 64 copies of the purchase tax invoices; and (iii) on the ground that the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the prosecution against the violation of Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; and Article 8-2(1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act.

6) On February 19, 2010 and February 22, 2011, the Plaintiff was investigated into the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice) by the Seoul beneficiary Police Station, and stated the following as to the circumstances in which the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director in XX, and the contents of the business in XX.

-The name of the representative was registered as a shower upon request by the PB or LA, which is a four-year line of high school (central high school) and that it was difficult for the PB or LA to register as a business operator, and the head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office to work at the PB or LA, which was called for by telephone or by the PB or LA, but there was no fact that the head of the PB received benefits from the P.

- No one is the relationship managed by the PB, ParkB, or ParkB with respect to the issuance and delivery of a tax invoice, and no one was the party to the transaction.

- There is no difference between September 30, 2009 and April 19, 2010 about Does, which are recorded as the representative director of XX, and there is no fact that there is no fact about Does.

7) On February 22, 2010 and February 25, 2011, Park Jong-gu Police Agency stated to the effect that Park Jong-gu also under its investigation on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice, etc.) was operated under the Plaintiff’s name as a four-year high school because it is difficult to conduct business registration under its name due to its debt relationship, and that the actual operation of Park Jong-gu is the principal and UBB, and that the Dong Seo-gu was registered as a director of XX, but this is true that this Do-do was not involved in its business at all, and that it did not know about its business.

8) On March 11, 2011, at the Chungcheong Police Station, conducted an investigation into the suspected violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice, etc.) and stated that the reason why the former representative director was the director of the meeting of the meeting of the meeting of the meeting of the meeting of the meeting of the meeting of the member of the meeting of the meeting of the meeting of the member of the meeting of the meeting of the member of the meeting of the meeting of the member of the meeting of the meeting of the member of the meeting of the meeting of the member of the meeting of the member of the meeting of the member of the meeting

9) On March 31, 2010, the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office (i) made a decision that the Plaintiff only lent its name to the Plaintiff, and that the actual company was operated on the ground that the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was ParkA and the statement made to ParkA is in accord with it. On the other hand, with respect to ParkA’s violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, ParkA, deemed Park as its actual manager, applied for a summary order of KRW 00,000,000, and (ii) on May 31, 2011, as to the Plaintiff’s specific crime against the Plaintiff on the ground that ParkA was registered as its representative director, but the Plaintiff did not actually operate the name, and there was no evidence to prove that ParkA’s statement was consistent with it.

10) On August 31, 2008, Park Jae-B and ParkB entered as the representative director of XX, the Plaintiff, as a title trustee, prepared a confirmation letter to the effect that the actual management of the Plaintiff was Park Jae-B, and that the Plaintiff would be liable to pay taxes and public charges on the purchase and sale of XX, and then delivered it to the Plaintiff (EB signed the seal imprint, and ParkB signed the seal imprint).

11) The parties to transaction, including AA (E), have prepared and submitted a written confirmation of the fact that the actual transaction has been made with ParkA and DoB.

12) Meanwhile, Article XX submitted a withholding receipt for wage and salary income to the head of the Guro Tax Office on March 3, 2009. According to the above, the Plaintiff received 000 won from the payment from May 10, 2008 to December 31, 2008, and the wage and salary income amount determined by making earned income deduction, basic deduction, national pension insurance deduction, insurance premium deduction, and insurance premium deduction from the payment is 0. However, according to the Plaintiff’s statement of passbook transaction, according to the Plaintiff’s statement of passbook transaction, the Plaintiff did not confirm the contents of the receipt of the monthly payment from the payment under the pretext of payment, and confirmed the entry and withdrawal details with the customer.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, Eul 3, 4, 5, and 6, testimony of witness friendlyB, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) The system of recognizing representatives under Article 106(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is not based on the facts that such a representative has generated income, but rather requires the representative to consider certain facts that can be recognized as such in order to prevent an unfair act under tax law by a corporation as a bonus to a unconditional representative regardless of their substance. The representative is substantially a representative operating the company. Thus, even if a person is registered as a representative on the corporate register of the company, if there is no actual operation of the company, it cannot be imposed on the person whose income the representative has accrued to him/her (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1238, Apr. 12, 198). However, since a person who is registered as a representative on the corporate register can be presumed as operating the company substantially, the representative director on the corporate register must prove that he/she has actually failed to operate the company (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du1116, Dec. 23, 2010).

2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff was consistently involved in the management from the time when he was investigated by the investigative agency regarding the issuance and receipt of false tax invoices under XX, and that only the name of the representative director was lent upon the request of high school DoB, ParkB, and ParkB. The Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office also made a statement consistent with the Plaintiff's assertion. ② The Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office decided that the Plaintiff was suspected of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice) on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was the actual representative of the company, and that the Plaintiff did not actually receive a summary order against the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, the Plaintiff did not appear to have received the Plaintiff's reply to the Plaintiff's entry of the company under the name of the head of the company under the name of the company and the representative director of the company under the name of the head of the company under the name of the company under the name of the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and thus acceptable.