2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

(1) On September 14, 2012, the Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax and value-added tax Xxx on September 14, 2012 against Plaintiff AA, and each imposition of corporate tax and corporate tax xxx, value-added tax xx, and earned income tax and income tax xx, respectively, made to Plaintiff BB on November 6, 2012, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, from "1. 2. The process of the disposition of this case" to "2. The plaintiffs' assertion, b. related laws and regulations, and c. the facts of recognition" to "2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the above part (2. 7. 2. 7 to 5. 5. 5. .). Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

Part 9 of Part 9, "Establishment on March 8, 2004" shall be deleted, and the following shall be added to "the representative director", "the register of juristic persons".

Part 13 of Part 2, "the establishment of March 8, 2010" shall be deleted, "owned," "after its incorporation" shall be added, "the time of incorporation" shall be "the 14th representative director" shall be added, "the register of juristic persons" shall be added.

○ Part 5 (4) of the fifth page “the date of establishment of B” shall be deleted.

○ The 5th page 11 of the 5th page is "the court of first instance" to read "the court of first instance".

○ The following shall be added to the fifth page 24 below:

(7) On November 27, 2014, CCC stated in this Court as follows:

○○c established the name of the corporation after the witness acquired the Co., Ltd. at around 2005, and the name of the corporation was changed, and around February 2010 in order to be divided into the bid for construction.

The establishment of ○○b was directed by DDR, which was the director of the general affairs division at the time of the witness, and completed the establishment process through a certified judicial scrivener. The establishment of Dob was made by lending the name of Plaintiff BB and holding 10% of the shares, and registered as the representative director on the corporate register.

○○ c’s representative director was a disaster on the corporate register as EE, a child born by the witness's re-reinting, but the EE was unable to obtain a defective performance insurance policy due to the lower credit rating while using the bonds, and was in the name of the representative director of the Plaintiff AA who was an employee, and thereafter, the name of the shares was changed to hold shares held by Plaintiff AA 70%.

With regard to the change of the name of c in the name of c, or the establishment of b, the plaintiff AA and BB are listed only in the name of the representative director and the shareholder, and the management of the company was in charge of all the witness.

○ 5. The testimony at the last 5. The testimony at each trial shall be taken into consideration as “each trial testimony,” and thereafter the “satisfying of a witness at each trial” shall be added.

2. Parts that vary from the judgment of the first instance court;

D. Determination

(1) Whether it constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder shall be determined by whether it is a member of a group owned by a majority 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 sufficient for a tax authority to prove it by the data such as the register of shareholders, the statement of stock transfer

However, even in cases where one shareholder appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, if there are circumstances, such as the actual shareholder was stolen, or registered in the name other than the real shareholder’s name, the actual shareholder cannot be deemed to fall under the shareholder merely by the name thereof, but this should be proved by the nominal owner who asserts that he/she is not a shareholder (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615, Jul. 9, 2004).

(2) As can be found by the above facts of recognition, ① C and B are corporations established or taken over by CCC for its own business needs and are operated for the same address and type of business as one place of business, ③ C and C and B are operated for the same name of representative, ③ the Plaintiffs were employed by CCC, and there was no change in working conditions, such as actual duties or wages, etc., even after CCC was registered as a representative director and was listed as a shareholder, ③ CCC and DD were listed as C and B as the representative director of CC, Plaintiff BB as the representative director, and Plaintiff BB were listed as the Plaintiffs only in the form of the list of shareholders, and were listed as CCC and BB as the representative director of B, but they were listed in the list of shareholders in the name of c and B and 10% of each of the Plaintiffs’ list of shareholders.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed the Plaintiffs as secondary taxpayers is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.