early 2010 Heavy2756 ( November 26, 2010)

Although the person who was registered as the representative on the corporate register is the representative on the corporate register, there is no evidence to recognize it.

The plaintiff was engaged in business activities in 2005, 2006, 2008, but omitted sales equivalent to the sales amount at the time of filing a return of value-added tax and corporate tax, and the plaintiff alleged that the person registered as the representative on the corporate register is the representative on the corporate register, but there is no evidence to support this, and therefore the person actually controlling the management of the corporation is the representative belonging to

2011Revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax, etc.

AAAAA

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

June 21, 2012

July 12, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of value-added tax for the second period of July 1, 2010 for the Plaintiff in 2006, and KRW 000 of value-added tax for the first period of 2008, and KRW 000 of corporate tax for the business year 2006 and corporate tax for the business year 2008, respectively, and notification of the change in income for the year 2006, and notification of the change in income for the second period of 2008 and KRW 000 for the year 200, respectively, and notification of the change in income for the second period of 2005 and corporate tax for the business year 2005, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The defendant, and the plaintiff who is engaged in the manufacturing industry from Samsung Head of the North Mine Tax Office, and Samsung Head of the Samsung Tax Office

On July 1, 2010, a notice of taxation data was given that each sales was omitted during the 2006 taxable period of the second value-added tax in 2006, and 000 won during the first value-added tax period of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the first tax disposition in this case"), and on the omitted amount, a notice of correction and notification of the value-added tax and corporate tax (hereinafter referred to as "the first tax disposition in this case") for each taxable period, as shown in the attached tax disposition statement in the attached Form No. 1 of 2010 on July 1, 2010, and a notice of change was given to the directors' privateG, the representative of the plaintiff, about 00 won for the omission of sales in 206 and 000 won for the first taxable year of 208, and about 00 won for the accrued amount, and about 00 won for the omitted sales amount, and 00 won for each bonus (hereinafter referred to as "the notice of change in income amount of this case").

B. In addition, the defendant was notified by the head of the North Mine District Tax Office of taxation that the plaintiff omitted sales of 00 won during the 2nd taxable period of the 2nd taxable period of the 2005 second taxable period of the 2nd taxable period (hereinafter "the second taxable period of the 2nd taxable period"), and the defendant corrected and notified the value-added tax and the corporate tax (hereinafter "the second taxable disposition of the 2nd taxable disposition") on August 9, 2010, and issued a notice of change in the amount of income (hereinafter "the second taxable disposition of the case") by disposing of the above sales from the plaintiff's representative publicG as bonus and disposing of the above sales to the 2nd taxable period of the 2nd taxable period of the 2nd taxable year of the 205.

C. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 18, 2010.

However, the above appeal was dismissed on November 26, 2010.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the Plaintiff had been actually dissolved in around 2006 and did not engage in any business activity, each of the value-added tax and corporate tax in 2006 and 2008 is in a state where there is no taxation.

as it is illegal.

(2) In addition, the actual exercise of authority as the representative of the Plaintiff was carried out by Knam, which is the form of the civilG, and the civilG was registered as the representative of the Plaintiff, and there was no actual or external exercise of its authority. Therefore, each of the instant reports on changes in the income amount, which the privateGG provided that it is the actual representative of the Plaintiff, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s first assertion

The plaintiff was omitted at the time of filing a corporate tax return for 205 and 2005, even though it was omitted at the time of filing a corporate tax return for 2005 and 2005, and it was omitted at the time of filing a tax return for 200 won of the contract amount on October 31, 2006, while it was omitted at the time of filing a corporate tax return for 2006 and 2006, and between January 2, 2008 and March 2008, the total amount of 140 won was calculated from January 2, 2008 to March 2008, and between H Construction Co., Ltd. and H Construction Co., Ltd. and H Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., the plaintiff's total amount of 100 won was calculated at the time of filing a corporate tax return for 200 and 208.

(2) Judgment on the second assertion by the Plaintiff

(A) The former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619, Feb. 22, 2008)

Article 106 (1) 1 (proviso) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the corporation shall be deemed a bonus for a representative who is not a minority shareholder or a person with a special relationship with such representative in order to prevent any unlawful act under tax laws established by the corporation, not based on the fact that such income has accrued. In such a case, the representative of the corporation subject to the disposition of bonus shall be limited to driving away from the face and strict interpretation (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu3120, Jul. 14, 1992). Meanwhile, the proviso to Article 106 (1) 1 of the Act provides that the representative shall be deemed as vested in the representative if it is unclear that the amount of bonus should be attributed to the representative, and that the officer who is not a minority shareholder or a person with a special relationship with him should be deemed as a representative if he actually holds 30/100 or more of the total number of stocks issued by the corporation or the total amount of investment in the corporation, and that the person who actually controls the company shall be deemed a representative under the above provision.

(B) According to the Plaintiff’s actual representative in this case, KK 1, and 7, and 8 (including each number), as to which the Plaintiff’s actual title belongs to KK 1, the actual number of KG 1, and the maximum number of KG 1, which is the Plaintiff’s employee, applied for the issuance of overdue money and valuables to the Seoul Northern District Office on March 21, 2008, and the Plaintiff’s representative for the payment of overdue money and valuables: KG, and its actual number: 0G 1, which were found to have been subject to criminal punishment for the violation of the Labor Standards Act, and 20G 1, which were not related to the Plaintiff’s employees, were not related to the Plaintiff’s remaining 6G 1, and the fact that K 200, which were not related to the Plaintiff’s employees, were not related to the Plaintiff’s remaining 20, and the fact that K 5G 20% of the total number of the Plaintiff’s shares were not related to the Plaintiff’s shares.

(C) Accordingly, the notice of changes in each of the instant income amount that disposed of the omitted sales amount to the privateG is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.