명의상 주주임을 인정하기 부족하므로 제2차 납세의무자 지정은 적법함[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap1540 ( December 23, 2014)
Since it is insufficient to recognize that the secondary taxpayer is a shareholder in the name of the name, the designation of the secondary taxpayer is legitimate.
It seems that there is no reason to register the name of the shareholder in the name of the next person, such as not being able to understand the reasons for lending the name of the shareholder, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the name of the second person is only a shareholder. Therefore, the second person liable for tax payment is legitimate.
Article 39 (Secondary Liability to Pay Taxes by Investor)
2015Nu3574 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.
Park AA
O Head of tax office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap1540 decided December 23, 2014
November 24, 2015
January 19, 2016
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and on May 28, 2013, the decision that the defendant designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer of theCC Co., Ltd. and revoked the disposition of imposition of the OOO members.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding or adding the same content as that of paragraph (2). Thus, this court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. A part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance which is added or combined;
(a) the end of the sub-items 2.C. The following shall be added:
The plaintiff added the plaintiff's assertion that "the plaintiff was registered as a representative director in the name ofCC," and that "the plaintiff was registered as a shareholder ofCC, and that it was registered as a shareholder." However, in the first instance court, the plaintiff argued that "the plaintiff was temporarily lent the name of the shareholder ofCC to ParkB in around 2001, and that "the plaintiff was about about 201," and that "the plaintiff was about about 2,6,8,9,10 (including the serial number) was about to request ParkB to lend the name of the shareholder to "the plaintiff," and that "the person was about 2,6,8,9,10 (including the virtual number)" and the witness of the court of the first instance, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's testimony was insufficient to recognize it."
Meanwhile, in light of the fact that ParkB was registered as a shareholder ofCC before the Plaintiff was registered as a shareholder ofCC and was registered as a largest shareholder until now, it seems that ParkB had no reason for the Plaintiff to borrow the name of the shareholder from the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff and ParkB did not understand the reasons why ParkB had lent the name of the shareholder from the Plaintiff).
In addition, according to Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 8 (including virtual numbers), the facts that ParkB, DaD, and E held a temporary general meeting of shareholders as a shareholder ofCC and received a notarial deed, that they were appointed as an internal director ofCC on January 13, 201. However, the same day ParkB was appointed as the representative director ofCC. However, it is difficult to recognize that ParkB was still 1,000 shares out of the total 20,00 shares ofCC reported at the tax office, and that the plaintiff held 7,00 shares each, and that DaB, EB did not own shares, and that DoB did not own shares, DoB, EB and DoB were transferred to the plaintiff under the name of 20,000 shares, even if so, DoB did not claim that the plaintiff transferred shares to 30,000 shares on or after the transfer of shares under the name of 20,000 shares.
B. Parts used for repair;
The 5th 7th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth g eth eth eth 1.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.