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

Cheong-gu Office

From among the distribution schedule prepared on December 18, 2014, the amount of 120,610,350 won against the defendant among the distribution schedule prepared by the Daegu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court in 2013TTTW 000 and 2014TW 000 (Dual), the amount of dividends against the defendant shall be changed to 0 won, and the amount of dividends of the plaintiff shall be changed to 8,005,27 won from 8,005,277 won to 128,615,627 won.

A. On December 17, 2010, UU Credit Union completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage as the Plaintiff’s obligor, with respect to each real estate listed in [Attachment List 1 and 2] owned by the Plaintiff on December 17, 2010.

B. Pursuant to Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the director of the O tax office and the director of the OB tax office did not pay KRW 129,785,910 in total imposed on BB construction in 201, 201, 2012, 12, 129,785,910 in total, and 2012, 201, 201, 201, 201, 201, 129,785,910 in total, which were owned by BB construction as an oligopolistic shareholder of BB construction as of the date when the liability for tax payment is established, the Plaintiff designated the Plaintiff as the second taxpayer and notified the Plaintiff each of 129,785,910 in total, including corporate tax

C. Since then, the Plaintiff failed to pay the above corporate tax and value-added tax, the Defendant seized each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 on November 15, 2012, and completed the seizure registration on the 16th of the same month.

D. Meanwhile, on November 11, 2013, UU Credit Union filed an application for voluntary auction under Article 365 of the Civil Act with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff on March 4, 2014. On March 2014, 2014, the UU Credit Union (hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction procedure”). On March 20, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory auction based on the payment order No. 2013 tea,000 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2014, Mar. 24, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction procedure”). In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant filed a claim for the issuance of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax, value-added tax, KRW 152,091,90 among the delinquent corporate tax, value-added tax, and its additional dues, etc.

E. In the instant auction procedure, the House Administrative Court won was 120,610,350 won, 3720,610,350 won, 3726,480 won, 241,826,921 won, 16,713,235 won, 180,235 won, 180,36,361, 3613,235 won, 180,361, 361, 363, 443, and 444 of the amount to be distributed to the Defendant, who is the holder of the right to demand distribution, among the amounts to be actually distributed on December 18, 2014, who is the holder of the right to demand distribution of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the Plaintiff also filed a lawsuit on the distribution schedule to the Defendant, who is the holder of the right to demand distribution, 2527,275,2705,275.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-2, Gap evidence 7-3, 6-5, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1 through 5, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1, 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the assertion

The Plaintiff is merely a formal shareholder listed in the register of shareholders of BB construction and is not in a position to exercise shareholders' rights due to the request of DD, which actually operated BB construction, and the Plaintiff is merely a formal shareholder registered in the register of shareholders of BB construction. Therefore, the tax disposition imposed on the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder of BB construction is unlawful. Therefore, the said dividend table should be revised

B. Determination

Whether it constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be determined by whether it is a member of a majority group of stocks. Specifically, even if there is no fact involved in the management of the company, it cannot be determined that it is not an oligopolistic shareholder. The fact of ownership of stocks is proven by the tax authority through the data such as the register of stockholders, specifications of stock movement, or the register of corporate register, etc.: Provided, That even if it appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, if there are circumstances such as where the name of the shareholder was stolen or the name was registered under a name other than the name of the real owner, it cannot be deemed to be a shareholder solely on the ground that it is the nominal shareholder, but the nominal shareholder who asserts that he is not a shareholder should prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

As to the instant case, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not an oligopolistic shareholder of BB construction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the testimony of DD is not an oligopolistic shareholder of BB construction. Rather, in full view of the respective entries and arguments in subparagraph 9, subparagraph 2, the Plaintiff was registered as a shareholder of BB construction from the time BB construction was established until the date when BB construction becomes liable for tax payment, and held 500 shares of BB construction, and the Plaintiff served as an internal director of BB construction from July 28, 2011 to June 25, 2013. Accordingly, according to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff cannot be exempted from liability as a secondary taxpayer of BB construction due to the Plaintiff’s oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no ground.