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

Cheong-gu Office

On May 26, 2008, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition following the second taxpayer designation by an investor against the Plaintiff (the corporate tax in 2006, the first time value-added tax in 2006, the second time value-added tax in 2006, the second time value-added tax in 2007, the second time value-added tax in 2007, the second time value-added tax in 2007, the total value-added tax in 73,385,810, and the respective surcharges 18,884,480) is null and void a year.

A. A limited liability company is a company established on May 30, 2003 at ○○○○○○○○○○, 121-6, for the purpose of painting construction, etc. among the construction businesses, and was closed on November 27, 2007. The Plaintiff is a company established on March 12, 2007 for the purpose of the construction business of steel structures, etc. at the same address as AA, and the Plaintiff is a company established on March 12, 2007.

B. In light of the fact that a limited liability company A was delinquent in national taxes and its property is not able to cover national taxes, additional dues, and expenses for disposition on default, the Defendant, on November 15, 2007, designated a subordinate taxpayer pursuant to Article 39 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) and imposed a second taxpayer on the subordinate B to whom the limited liability company A was delinquent.

C. The Defendant issued a notice of imposition of KRW 35,975,940 (including additional charges and increased additional charges; hereinafter the same shall apply), 17,631,680 (including additional charges and increased additional charges), 15,495, 390, 2006 value-added tax for the second period of February 2006, 2006, 8,876, 130, 130, 207, 207, 3259, 90 of the corporate tax for the year 2006, a limited liability company A was designated as the secondary taxpayer of a limited liability company and limited liability company A was imposed on the Plaintiff on the ground that HB was an oligopolistic shareholder of the Plaintiff. < Amended by Act No. 8873, May 26, 2008; Act No. 7259, Feb. 3, 2007>

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s representative HB holds only 35% of the Plaintiff’s shares, and does not constitute an oligopolistic shareholder as defined in Article 40 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. The instant disposition is, without any legal basis, designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer, and its defect is serious, clear, and void.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In order for a taxation disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is an unlawful ground for the taxation disposition to be null and void. It is objectively clear that the defect violates the important laws and regulations, and it is necessary to determine whether the defect is significant and obvious, and there is a need to reasonably consider the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the taxation disposition, and at the same time, about the specificity of the specific case itself. From this perspective, the taxation disposition against a person who has no factual basis for the taxation, is significant and obvious, but if there is objective reason to believe that it is subject to taxation due to any legal relation or factual basis which is not subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed null and void a taxation disposition that misleads the fact of taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Du7268, Sep. 4, 2002; 201Nu6364, Jun. 26, 1998).

2) The following circumstances are acknowledged to show the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s statement in the Plaintiff’s No. 1 through No. 9 of this case, namely, HB held 90% of the Plaintiff’s shares as the representative of a limited liability company A; HB established the Plaintiff at the same address as the limited liability company A on March 12, 2007, and was appointed as the joint representative director on May 17, 2007. The Plaintiff was holding 14,000 shares out of the Plaintiff’s total 40,000 shares, and the Plaintiff’s 20,000 shares out of the issued shares were additionally acquired from 60,00 shares out of the issued shares, and HB acquired 20,000 shares out of 7,00 shares out of 40,000 shares, which were listed on the Plaintiff’s △△ shareholder’s 20,000 shares out of 20,000 shares, which were listed on the Plaintiff’s △△ shareholder’s shares.

Furthermore, even if HB did not constitute the Plaintiff’s oligopolistic shareholder, even if the Defendant violated the disposition of this case against the Plaintiff, comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, it can be found that the Defendant could have discovered that there was an objective circumstance that could mislead the Defendant as to the factual basis, which is the premise of the disposition of this case, to be subject to taxation, and that it could only be discovered whether it was subject to taxation or not. Thus, the defect of the disposition of this case is apparent in appearance and thus cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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