2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Defendant: DD Construction Co., Ltd. (NM 2; hereinafter “D Construction”); 20G 20, 30G 20, 207, 207, 207, 30G 20, 260, 207, 207, 207, 207, 30, 207, 206, 207, 206, 36G 20, 206, 206, 206, 206, 30, 206, 206, 30, 206, 206, 206, 30, 206, 206, 206, 30, 207, 206, 307, 206, 307, 206, 206, 307, 206, 307, 206, 27, 37, etc.

B. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Plaintiffs were dismissed on December 5, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1, 2-1, 3, 4-1, 5-1, 6-1, 7-2, 7-1, and 2-1, 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

In order to examine the issue of whether the additional dues or increased additional dues imposed on the plaintiffs are unlawful, since the additional dues or increased additional dues imposed on the plaintiffs are naturally generated pursuant to the provisions of the law without the fixed procedure of the taxation office unless national taxes are paid by the payment deadline, it cannot be viewed as a disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

However, Article 39 (1) 2 of the Act provides that if the property of a corporation is insufficient to cover the national tax, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears that the corporation has imposed on or is to pay, the corporation shall be liable to pay the second liability for the shortage to the oligopolistic shareholder as of the date on which the national tax liability is established. According to each of the above evidence, the additional dues or aggravated additional dues among the dispositions in this case shall not be notified to the Plaintiffs who are subject to the second liability for payment of the national tax, etc. for which DD construction fails to pay it by the due date. However, the amount of additional dues or increased additional dues among the dispositions in this case shall not be notified to the Plaintiffs who are subject to the second liability for payment of the principal tax in arrears pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Act, since the additional dues or increased additional dues are part of the amount of tax imposed together with the principal tax, the above additional dues or increased additional dues are also subject to appeal litigation.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The Plaintiffs, around October 2001, transferred the shares owned by the Plaintiffs to EA at KRW 500,000 per share (10 won per share). As such, the Plaintiffs do not constitute an oligopolistic shareholder of DD Construction as at the date when the liability to pay delinquent national taxes of this case was established, and do not constitute a person who actually exercises the right to hold shares as an oligopolistic shareholder

(2) Since it was clearly stated that DD Construction drafted and issued a false tax invoice during the imposition period of the Value-Added Tax for the first and second years of 2007 after the instant disposition, and the value-added tax for the first and second years of 2007 for DD Construction was reduced or exempted, among the instant disposition, the value-added tax for the first and second years of 2007 should also be reduced or exempted.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) DD Construction was established on October 26, 1994. On December 31, 200, as of December 31, 200, KRW 411,358,408 for assets as of December 31, 200, and KRW 591,185,757 for liabilities was fully impaired.

(2) At the time of October 2001, the shares of DD Construction were 62,00 shares totaled of 62,320 shares (36%) owned 22,320 shares (ratio 36%) by Plaintiff Lee Dong-G, 16,652 shares (Share 26.86%) by Plaintiff Yang HH, 17,714 shares (Share 28.57%) by Lee Dong-F, 3,100 shares (Share 5%) by this J, and 2,214 shares by Justice J (Share 3.57%).

(3) DD Construction: (1) on March 31, 2004, the 2003rd shareholders' general shareholders' meeting was approved; (2) on March 31, 2004, the 2003rd shareholders' meeting was approved; (3) on March 31, 2004, the 200th shareholders' meeting was prepared; (4) on March 31, 200, the 200th shareholders' meeting was approved; (3) on the 3rd shareholders' list, the 5th shareholders' meeting was approved; (4) the 2nd shareholders' meeting was approved; (5) the 2nd shareholders' meeting was prepared; (4) the 2nd shareholders' meeting was approved; (3) the 2nd shareholders' list was approved; (4) the 2nd shareholders' list was approved by 30th shareholders' general shareholders' meeting was prepared; (4) the 2nd shareholders' meeting was approved by 30th shareholders' general shareholders' meeting was held; and (3) the 2nd shareholders' 14th shareholders' shares were so appointed.

(4) On the other hand, it is stated that there is no change in shareholders from October 2001 to November 27, 2007 when DDR was closed ex officio.

[Ground of recognition] 1, 2, 12, 14-1 through 4, 16, 19-1 through 3, 21, 19-1, 19-1, 21, 1-1, 1-1, 1-1, and 1-1, 1-2, and 9-1, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

With respect to whether a person falls under an oligopolistic stockholder under Article 39 (1) 2 of the Act, the tax authority shall be deemed to have proved the ownership of the stocks by the data such as the register of stockholders, statement of changes in stocks or register of corporate register, etc.: Provided, That even if it appears to be a single stockholder in light of the above data, if there are circumstances such as transfer of the stocks in fact and it is not a stockholder, it shall not be deemed

Therefore, first of all, we examine whether the plaintiffs are oligopolistic shareholders at the time when the liability to pay the delinquent national taxes of this case was established, and first, according to the minutes of the ordinary shareholders' meeting of March 31, 2004, the minutes of the extraordinary shareholders' meeting of November 24, 2005, and the minutes of each extraordinary shareholders' meeting of May 28, 2007, thisA, BB, and 3 other shareholders were shareholders at around March 31, 2004, and only this shareholder was shareholders at around November 24, 2005, and since around May 28, 2007, it was stated that the plaintiffs were shareholders at the time of the above oligopolistic shareholders' exercise of the liability to pay the delinquent national taxes of this case, and that there were no changes in the list of shareholders, which correspond to the above contents at the time of this case's exercise of the liability to pay delinquent local taxes of this case, and that the plaintiffs were still owners at the time of this case's exercise of the rights of each shareholder.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case premised on the premise that the plaintiffs are oligopolistic shareholders is unlawful without examining the remaining issues, and all of the plaintiffs' claims seeking its revocation are justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.