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

The original imposition disposition shall be revoked.

(a) The current status of the (head of Si/Gun/Gu, Do (hereinafter referred to as "non-resident company");

(1) The establishment of December 22, 1998

(b) Purpose: Wholesale and retail business, etc. of precious metals and gold medicine for industrial use;

(3) An officer;

(가) 대표이사 : 원고의남편윤★★(설립~ 현재)

(B) Directors: The Plaintiff’s parents Kim Jong-Bale and △△△△ (Establishment - June 3, 2004)

(C) Auditor: The plaintiff (Establishment from point of time to present)

(4) Details of shareholders

B. The defendant's disposition of corporate tax and value-added tax (the defendant's disposition of this case hereinafter collectively): the date of disposition (1): September 9, 2008.

(2) Grounds for taxation

(A) On July 15, 2008, the non-party company did not pay the tax amount imposed by the corporate tax and the value-added tax on the non-party company.

(B) The property of the non-party company is insufficient to cover the delinquent tax amount.

(C)Designation of the secondary tax obligor under Article 39(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

○ 윤★★ : 대표이사로서회사의경영을사실상지배하는자(제2호)

○ 원고 : 윤★★의배우자(제3호)

○ Kim Bale and △△△: Non-existence of lineal ascendants and descendants living together.

(3) Determination amount: 25% (Plaintiff’s share) of the amount in arrears of the non-party company

(A) Value-added tax

○ For the first period of 2011 29,451,780 ○ 2011 24,636,600

○ For the first term of 2002 KRW 34,770,030 for the second term of 202 16,812,780 for the second term of 202

○ 16,830,220 for the first term of 203 203 6,490,220 for the second term of 203

(b) corporate tax;

○ KRW 6,796,180 for the business year 2001 ○ 5,066,990 for the business year 2002

○ 3,697,730 won for the business year 2003

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) 원고는 명의대여자이므로 법 제39조 제1항 제2호가 정한 과점주주가 아니다. 원고가 윤★★과 결혼한 무렵부터 부부관계가 실질적으로 파탄되어 장기간 별거한 채 연락조차 없이 지내다가 우연히 윤★★이 소외 회사를 설립하는 과정에서 정족수를 채워야 한다며 주주명의를 빌려달라고 요구하여 그에 응하였을 뿐이므로 실질 주주에 해당하지 않는다.

(2) 원고는 윤★★과 정상적인 혼인관계에 있지 않았으므로 법 제39 제1항 제2호 다목이 정한 제2차 납세의무자에 해당하지 않는다.

(가) 윤★★은 원고와 원고 부모의 재산을 탕진하고 잦은 외박과 외도를 하였으며, 원고에게 상습적으로 폭력을 행사하여 형사처벌을 받기도 하였고, 원고 몰래 빼돌린 돈으로 내연녀 명의로 회사를 설립하여 내연녀에게 막대한 이익금을 주는 등의 파렴치한 일을 자행하면서도 원고에게 생활비를 주지도 않았다.

(나) 원고는 법인등기부에 소외 회사의 감사로 등재하면 월 70만 원을 받기로 약정하였으나 윤★★로부터 급여나 배당 등 일체의 이익을 얻지 않았다.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From February 1, 1984 to August 8, 2005, the Plaintiff’s father Kim Jong-chul operated the surveying company, “Chump surveying” in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, 387-3.

(2) 김●●은 윤★★에게 소외 회사 설립과 관련하여 50,000,000원을 대여하여 ◎◎측량 사무실 일부를 사용하게 하고 제세공과금을 대신 납부하기도 하였다.

(3) The location of the non-party company is the same as the location of dump survey from February 1, 1984, which was the date of establishment, to January 27, 2005, which was the date of closedown.

(4) Details of the payment of salaries for the non-party company

(A) The Plaintiff’s 200 annual salary of KRW 6,900,000, and KRW 2,750,000 for the year 201

(B) The benefits of 2000 8,100,000 won and the benefits of 2001 3,250,000

(C) The salary of 200 8,100,000 won and the salary of 2001 3,250,000 won in 200

(5) 원고와윤★★의혼인관계

On December 12, 1996, marriage, November 3, 2006, the Seoul Family Court made the divorce mediation at the Seoul Family Court.

The basis for recognition shall be written with the 7 to 12 identifications (including rectangular numbers), the entire purport of the pleading

D. Determination

(1) Determination on the first proposal

(A) The criteria for determining the main shareholders of the family under Article 39(1)2 of the Act

It shall be determined by whether a group owned by the majority of shares is a member of the group owned by the majority, and even if there is no specific fact in the management of the company, it shall not be an oligopolistic shareholder.

The facts of ownership of ○○ shares are to be proved by the data such as the list of shareholders, the statement of stock transfer or the register of corporate register, etc. by the tax authorities. However, even in cases where a shareholder appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, where there are circumstances, such as where the name of the shareholder was stolen or registered in the name other than the name of the real owner, the actual owner shall not be deemed to be the shareholder, but the nominal owner who asserts that he is not a shareholder shall prove that he is not the shareholder (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu1721, Jul. 23, 1991; 94Nu622, Aug. 12, 1994; 95Nu1470, Dec. 6, 1996).

(나) 소외 회사의 2001년 ~ 2003년 사업연도 주식 등 변동상황명세서에 나타난 각 납세의무의 성립일 당시의 원고, 윤★★, 김●●, 이◇◇는 각 25% 주주로서, 국세 기본법 시행령 제20조가 정한 친족관계에 있는 사람들로서 그 소유주식수의 합계가 소외 회사 발행주식총수의 50/100을 초과하는 주주들이어서 법 제39조 제2항이 정한 과점주주에 해당한다.

(C) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that he was only a nominal shareholder registered in the register of shareholders by lending his name. However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that he is a nominal shareholder, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Furthermore, in full view of the following circumstances revealed in the pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, Kim Il-young, etc., appears to have participated in the establishment and operation of the Nonparty

○ 원고는 윤★★과 사이에 소외 회사의 법인등기부에 감사로 등재하면 월 70만 원을 받기로 약정하였고, 소외 회사는 원고 및 그와 특수관계에 있는 윤★★ 및 김●●, 이◇◇ 등이 발행주식총수를 100% 소유하였다.

○ 원고의 아버지 김●●은 윤★★에게 소외 회사 설립 비용과 사무실을 제공하는 등으로 소외 회사 설립에 적극적으로 관여하였다.

○ The Plaintiff and his parents Kim Il-chul, and △△△ was paid by the non-party company both in 2000 and 2001.

○ 윤★★은 소외 회사 설립시는 물론 폐업할 때까지 김●●의 사무실에서 소외 회사를 계속 운영하였고, 김●●이 운영하던 ◎◎측량은 소외 회사가 폐업한 이후 에도 같은 사무실에서 계속 영업을 하다가 폐업하였다.

(2) Judgment on the second proposal

(a) The secondary liability for tax payment and the requirements for the primary shareholder, as set forth in Article 39(1)2(c) of the Act;

A spouse of a person falling under Article 39(1)2 (a) and (b) of the Act, or an oligopolistic stockholder who is a lineal ascendant or descendant living with him/her, need not be a person who, by himself/herself, participates in the management of the corporation and actually controls the same, or exercises a substantial right over the stocks of 51/100 or more of the total number of issued and outstanding stocks of the corporation concerned (Supreme Court Decision 2003Du278, Jul. 9,

1615 Reference to Decision 1615.

(나) 윤★★이 재산을 탕진하고, 원고에게 상습적으로 폭력을 행사하며 잦은 외박과 외도를 하여 원고와의 혼인관계가 파탄에 이르렀다고 하더라도 원고가 윤★★에게 명의를 빌려준 명의상 주주라고 할 수 없는 이상, 그러한 사정만으로 윤★★과 혼인관계를 해소하기 전에 성립한 소외 회사에 대한 제2차 납세의무를 부인할 수 없다.

Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff's senior secretary.

(3) Sub-determination: The disposition of this case is legal.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.