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

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings as to the entries in Gap evidence 1-1-8 and Gap evidence 3:

A. On July 27, 1998, the Plaintiff received 8,700 shares from thisA, an unlisted corporation owned by it (hereinafter referred to as "PP transportation"). On April 19, 199, the Plaintiff sent a notice of stock transfer to the effect that the above 8,700 shares were transferred on behalf of the transferor, by way of content certification, and then acquired the above 8,700 shares (the total number of shares issued 11,400 shares).

B. The Defendant failed to pay the wage and salary income tax, value-added tax, corporate tax, etc. as stated in the separate notice of tax payment Nos. 1 through 8 of the separate notice of tax payment No. 39(1)2(a) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (wholly amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereafter the same shall apply). The Defendant designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of transportation pursuant to Article 39(1)2(a) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (wholly amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereafter the same shall apply). Based on the Plaintiff’s share ratio, the Defendant imposed and notified each tax on the Plaintiff as stated in the separate notice of tax payment Nos. 1 to 4, and each of the above dispositions imposed or imposed each of the above taxes in sequence as stated in the separate notice of tax payment No. 5 through No. 8 of May 26, 2008.

C. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 19, 2008, but the said appeal was dismissed on March 19, 2010.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On July 27, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired the above shares 8,700 shares from thisA. However, the “person who actually exercises the rights to shares above 51% under Article 39(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, which set the scope of oligopolistic shareholders liable for secondary tax liability,” refers to a person who actually operates a stock company with 51% or more of the total issued shares and can use them as a means of tax avoidance. Since around 1998, the Plaintiff continued legal disputes over the shareholders’ rights and right to manage the shares of XX shares with KimB and the HighCC, etc., and as such, the Plaintiff did not recognize the rights as shareholders from XX transportation (Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na14276 delivered on May 10, 2007, the Plaintiff could not exercise the shareholders’ rights under Article 39(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, even if it did not exercise the shareholders’ rights under Article 39(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Article 39(1)2 (a) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that only persons who actually exercise rights to 51/100 or more of the total number of issued and outstanding shares or the total amount of equity investment shares shall be subject to secondary tax liability. The exercise of rights to 51% or more of the shares is not necessarily required to have actual exercise of shareholders' rights, but should be deemed as sufficient if they are in a position to exercise shareholders' rights to the shares held as of the date of establishment of principal tax liability (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du5354, Jul. 8, 2003). Thus, solely on the ground that there is a de facto obstacle to exercising shareholders' rights to the shares held as of the date of establishment of principal tax liability, the said person cannot be said to have practically

(2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above facts were 0G 20. The Plaintiff’s shares issued and sold to the above 0-2 Seoul High Court for the purpose of exercising shareholder rights against the above 00G 20. The Plaintiff did not constitute a de facto obstacle to the above 9G 20. The Plaintiff’s allegation that the above facts were 0G 20 and the above 9G 20. The Plaintiff’s shares were 00 shares issued and sold to the above 0-2 Seoul High Court for the purpose of exercising shareholder rights against the above 0G 90. The Plaintiff’s allegation that the above facts were 0G 90 and the above 9G 20. The Plaintiff’s shares were 00 shares shares issued and sold to the Plaintiff and the above 9G 20. The Plaintiff’s allegation that the above facts were 9G 90% shares shares were 90% shares shares and 30% shares shares shares were distributed to the Plaintiff and the 30D 50% shares.

3. Conclusion

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