Early High Court Decision 2009Du4293 (2010.04.02)

The plaintiff is a representative who has overall control over incorporation, tax-related business, finance-related business, etc. as well as bill transactions.

Since the plaintiff is the representative who has overall control over the establishment of a corporation, tax-related business, finance-related business, etc. as well as bill transactions, the disposition that imposed the amount of disposition on the plaintiff on the ground that it is recognized as the plaintiff's earned income is legitimate.

2010Guhap9847 global income and revocation of disposition

오〇〇

〇〇세무서장

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 93,473,636 against the Plaintiff on April 24, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 주식회사 〇〇산업(이하 '소외회사')은 1999. 10. 4. 컴퓨터부품 제조, 판매업 등 을 영위하기 위하여 〇〇시 〇〇동 1254 〇〇공단 501호에 설립되었다가 2003. 3. 31. △△세무서장으로부터 직권폐업 당하였고, 위 설립일부터 법인등기부상 김AA(원고의 전처)이 계속 대표이사로 등재되어 있었다.

나. 소외회사는 2004. 12. 29. 〇〇세무서장에게 아래 〈표1> 기재와 같이 2003 사업 연도에 369,741,050원(번호 ①,②,③ 금액을 이하 '이 사건 금액')의 매출누락 및 가공 매입이 있었다면서 위 금액을 익금산입하고, 그 금액을 당시 영업이사로 재직 중이던 김BB에게 인정상여로 소득처분 하여, 2003 사업연도 법인세를 수정신고 하였다.

다. 그런데 〇〇세무서장은 2005년 5월경 소외회사에 대한 자료상혐의자 세무조사를 실시하여 매출누락, 가공매입 사실을 확인하고, 소외회사의 법인등기부에 대표이사로 등재되어 있는 김AA에게 인정상여로 소득처분 하여 피고에게 위 369,741,000원이 포함된 709,482,000원을 인정상여 소득금액 과세자료를 통보하였다.

라. 피고는 위 과세자료에 따라 2006. 1. 1. 김AA에게 2003년 귀속 종합소득세 309,529,700원을 경정・고지하였다가, 〇〇세무서장으로부터 위 소득금액 중 339,714,000원을 감액한 금액을 인정상여 소득금액 과세자료로 재통보 받고 2006. 5. 10. 위 종합소득세 중 159,488,790원을 감액경정 하였으며 남은 세액은 150,040,900원이다.

E. On March 19, 2007, KimA filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking revocation of the above disposition against the defendant to the effect that the defendant is not the actual representative of the non-party company (this court 2007Guhap2495), and this court rendered a decision that the above disposition was revoked on August 13, 2008, and the defendant appealed, but the appeal was dismissed on February 4, 2009 (Seoul High Court 2008Nu25274).

바. 그 과정에서 〇〇세무서장은 2008. 12. 24. 소외회사가 2004. 12. 29.자 수정신고 당시 인정상여로 소득처분한 김BB을 실질적 대표자로 보아 김BB에게 369,741,050 원을 인정상여로 소득처분하고 같은 날 소외회사에게 2003년 귀속 소득금액 변동통지를 하였다.

사. 김BB은 이에 불복하여 2009. 2. 19. 〇〇세무서장에게 이의신청을 하였고, 〇〇 세무서장은 2009. 3. 20. 이의신청에서의 재조사결정에 따라 재조사결과, 소외회사의 실질적 경영자 및 총괄 대표자를 김AA의 배우자인 원고로 보아 2009. 4. 24. 원고에 게 이 사건 금액을 인정상여로 소득처분하고 같은 날 소외회사에게 2003년 귀속 소득 금액 변동통지를 하였다.

H. On April 24, 2009, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 135,329,320 as global income tax for the year 2003.

I. The plaintiff appealed and filed an objection against the defendant on August 4, 2009. On September 3, 2009, the defendant confirmed that the amount of KRW 101,987,550, which was the amount of the above attached Table 1, was processed sales, and corrected by reduction and correction. As a result, the balance of global income tax was KRW 93,473,636 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case").

(j) The Plaintiff again filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 9, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff did not actually operate a company as a director under the name of the non-party company, and KimB is the actual representative of the non-party company, and the instant disposition that the Plaintiff deemed the actual representative is unlawful as it violates the substance over form principle.

(2) Unlike the recognized contributions under the Corporate Tax Act, in order to impose the income tax on the Plaintiff, the tax authority must prove that the said income was reverted to the Plaintiff. The instant disposition is unlawful insofar as the proof is insufficient.

(b) Statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) 원고는 1996. 7. 1. △△시 △△구 △△동 445-2에서 개인사업체인 △△산업을 개업하였다가 1997. 12. 31. 폐업하고, 같은 장소에서 1997. 9. 9. 설립되어 1999. 3. 31. 폐업한 주식회사 △△산업의 대표이사를 지냈다. 또한 원고는 1999. 3. 8. 〇〇시 〇〇동 1367-1 소재 주식회사 ☆☆테크(2005. 7. 25. 폐업)의 대표이사와 2004. 5. 14. □□시 □□면 □□리 19-30 소재 주식회사 □□테크(2006. 12. 31. 폐업)의 대표이사를 지냈다.

(2) On April 20, 200, the Plaintiff was registered as a director in the corporate register of the non-party company, and used the name of the representative director of the non-party company around October 2002, and during the business year 2003, the Plaintiff owned 65% of the total amount of 14,000 shares (35%) in the name of the non-party company in the name of KimA (spouse), 6,000 shares (15%) in the name of KimCC (spouse), and 6,000 shares (15%) in the name of ED.

(3) 2005년 12월경 〇〇세무서의 소외회사에 대한 자료상혐의자 조사결과 상시근무 자는 원고와 김AA 2명뿐인 것으로 밝혀졌다. 원고는 당시 "상기 법인은 사업경영이 어려워진 2002년 말부터 2003년 직권폐업시까지 일부 가공매출이 있었음을 확인한다"

was signed in the certificate to that effect.

당시 〇〇세무서는 원고가 본인의 필체가 맞다고 인정한 2000년 1/4분기 매입매출 대비내역, 사업연도가 기재되지 않은 문건 2건, 그 문건들을 근거로 발행된 5매의 세금계산서 등으로 보아 원고가 세무관련 업무를 주도적으로 한 것으로, 어음발행확인서 5건(2000. 12. 4. 주식회사 ●●슨 5매 포함 총 9매, 2001. 5. 3. 주식회사 ●●슨 4 매 포함 총 6매, 2001. 10. 12. 주식회사 ●●슨 포함 총 7매, 2002. 6. 20. 주식회사 ●●슨 7매 포함 총 8매, 2003. 2. 7. ●●전자 등 총 8매)은 원고가 어음발행 후 국민은행 △△서지점에 제출하기 위해 직접 작성한 점으로 보아 어음발행 등도 원고의 통제 하에 이루어진 것으로 각 판단하였다.

from 1999 to 2001, Park E-E certified tax accountant in charge of reporting the corporate tax of a non-party company also stated that the plaintiff was in charge of tax-related affairs as the actual representative of the non-party company

(4) 한편, 김BB은 친동생인 김FF 명의로 소외회사의 주식 40,000주 중 14,000주 (2000연도까지는 10.000주 중 3.500주)를 소유하고 있었다. 김BB은 위 자료상혐의자 조사 당시, "원고가 소외회사가 2002. 9. 17. △△시 △△구 ▽▽동 698-20 지상 〇〇공단 4마116호를 낙찰 받고 당일 위 공장에 채권최고액 25억 원 상당의 근저당권을 설정하고 국민은행으로부터 대출받은 업무를 주도하였는데 그 과정에서 주거래은행인 국민은행 △△서지점에서 소외회사에 계속적인 은행거래를 위하여는 소외회사의 실제 대표자인 원고를 법인등기부에 이사로 등재해 줄 것으로 요구하여 등재가 이루어졌다. 소외회사 설립당시부터 원고가 등기 및 세무관련 업무를 총괄하고 본인은 원고의 지시를 받아 영업과 수금업무를 담당하였다. 자신은 영업이사라는 직함으로 거래처인 주식회사 ●●슨과의 거래에서 어음일부를 직접 발행 ・ 수수 ・ 할인하였다"고 진술하였다.

(5) 김BB은 2002년 10월경 및 같은 해 11월경 주식회사 ●●슨 명의의 어음을 발행하거나 다른 어음에 주식회사 ●●슨 명의로 배서하여 이를 소외회사에 빌려주거나 그 명의의 어음과 교환하여 사용한 사실로 주식회사 ●●슨(대표이사 이GG)으로부터 고소당하였고, 2003. 3. 28. 서울지방검찰청 북부지청 2003형제14342호로 기소되어 서울지방법원 북부지원(2003고합119, 2003고합221(병합)}에서 2003. 9. 5. 특정 경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률위반(배임)죄 등으로 징역 2년을 선고받아 그대로 확정되었고, 위 판 결에서는 김BB을 소외회사의 실질적 운영자라고 인정하였다.

However, in the process of the above tax investigation, KimB received much help from the Plaintiff in the process of having difficulties in using a bill as the payment for the goods from the △△ industry established by the Plaintiff at around 1994. In response, around 197, KimB sold goods and deposited the price in the company account in the position of director of the non-party company established by the Plaintiff as a director of the non-party company established by the Plaintiff was in charge of export and import since the company discontinued its business with the issuance of false tax invoices. At the time, when the Plaintiff instructs the customer to exchange the bills with the non-party company, the Plaintiff sent the bills to the customer, exchanged the bills, exchanged the bills to the Plaintiff, and sent them to the customer in accordance with the direction of the Plaintiff. Considering that the bills were mutually advantageous, the Plaintiff was instructed as above, but the Plaintiff did not speak the Plaintiff’s instruction and supervision, and thus, the Plaintiff’s representative did not answer the Plaintiff’s actual response.

(6) The plaintiff KimA, the former wife of the company, was registered as the representative director in the corporate register of the non-party company, and as being holding 3,500 shares (35%, 14,000 shares out of 40,000 shares) out of 10,00 shares issued by the above company on the shareholder list of the above company, but the management of the company was not involved at all.

[Reasons for Recognition] The testimony of Kim H by the witness Kim H and the purport of the whole pleadings as stated in Gap's 6 to 14 evidence, Eul 6, 7, 9, 10 to 25 evidence (including each number)

D. Determination

(1) Determination on the first argument

(A) Recognizing the following circumstances from the above facts:

① In accepting shares, where a person has invested shares in his/her name with the consent of another person and paid the price for shares, only the nominal borrower who actually acquired shares and paid the price for shares shall be a shareholder as a de facto shareholder, and a mere nominal titleholder may not become a shareholder (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da29138 Decided March 26, 2004). However, the Plaintiff is holding 65% shares of the non-party company by lending the name of KimA, KimCC, and LeeD, the spouse.

② At the time of the business year 2003, the Plaintiff was registered as a director of the non-party company and used the title of representative director, and KimA, the Plaintiff’s wife, was registered as the representative director of the non-party company.

③ Since the criminal case against himself, KimB stated that the Plaintiff was the actual representative of the non-party company even at the time of the instant tax investigation. The KimCC and LeeD also stated that the Plaintiff lent the shareholder name to the Plaintiff was in charge of technology and business, and that the Plaintiff was in charge of overall management of the non-party company.

④ The Plaintiff participated in the management of the funds of the non-party company by leading the issuance of bills, such as the settlement of funds, and tax affairs. However, in the business year 2003, the grounds for the instant disposition were that the non-party company sold tangible assets to the Non-party company 30,000,000 won, and the sales of the products to the ▽▽ industry Co., Ltd. were 48,153,500 won, and the portion was not included in the account books, and the amount was leaked to the non-party 189,60,000 won for sexual citizens. Accordingly, regarding the use of large amounts of money, such as the instant amount, and the outflow from the company, the Plaintiff is liable to the Plaintiff who participated in the financial management affairs of the company.

(5) The proviso to Article 106 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619, Feb. 22, 2008) shall be deemed to have accrued to the representative in cases where it is unclear to whom the amount of outflow from the company is attributed. In cases where the total number of stocks owned by an officer who is not a minority shareholder, etc. and persons with a special relationship with him/her is exceptionally holding 30/100 or more of the total number of stocks issued or total amount of investment in the relevant corporation and where such officer actually controls the operation of the corporation, he/she shall be deemed the representative if he/she can be deemed the representative if he/she is not the representative but the representative under the above provision shall be deemed the representative under the corporate register, and even if he/she does not actually meet the requirements for management of the corporation, the representative under the above provision shall not be deemed to have been registered as the representative under the corporate register, and thus, if the person actually controls the operation of the corporation, even if he/she fails to meet the requirements under the above provision.

그런데 원고가 실질적 대표자라 주장하는 김BB은 소외회사의 주식 35%를 소유하면서 영업이사라는 명칭으로 거래처인 주식회사 ●●슨과의 거래에서 어음 일부를 발행 ・ 수수 ・ 할인하는 등 영업이사라는 직분을 넘는 행위를 하였으나 그가 소외회사의 법인등기부상 대표이사로 등재된 바 있다거나, 위 괄호 속의 주주 등인 임원으로서의 요건을 구비하였다고 볼 아무런 증거가 없다.

Therefore, although KimB traded bills in excess of the position of the business director of the non-party company, it is only the subject of criminal punishment as the actor for the part related to bills.

(B) In full view of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff appears to have overall control over the establishment of a corporation, tax-related business, and finance business as well as the trading of bills. Ultimately, the Plaintiff is the representative of the non-party company under the above provision as the “person who actually controlled the management of the corporation as an officer, such as a shareholder,” under the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) Judgment on the second argument

Under Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the so-called recognition contribution system, in which it is clear that the amount to be reverted is attributed to the representative, but it is not based on the fact that such income has accrued to the representative, and the so-called recognition contribution system, which provides that certain facts which can be recognized as such act in order to prevent an unfair act under the tax law by a corporation shall be deemed as bonus to the de facto representative regardless of their substance, and Article 20 (1) 1 (c) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that "amount treated as bonus under the Corporate Tax Act is naturally included in Class A earned income, which is an element of calculating the global income tax, so the representative is liable to pay income tax regardless of whether the amount is actually attributed to himself/herself (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da49789, Sept. 18, 2008).

Therefore, as seen earlier, insofar as the Plaintiff, who is the actual representative of the non-party company, fails to prove that the ownership of the above KRW 267,753,50 is clear, it is reasonable to view the amount of disposition as the Plaintiff’s earned income and thus, the Defendant issued the instant disposition.

Ultimately, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.