2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

A. The Plaintiff is a shareholder or representative director of XX Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company"), and the non-party company is a corporation with the purpose of manufacturing and selling the land, etc. at present.

B. From April 2003 to December 2004, the non-party company issued sales tax invoices by applying the zero tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act to the importing company located in Hong Kong after receiving Chapter 186 of the purchase tax invoice of KRW 73,575,65,496, total of the supply value for the purchase of gold bullion (referring to gold bullion in the form of raw materials, such as gold bullion 9.5% or more, and gold bullion 9.5% or more; hereinafter referred to as “the gold bullion in this case”) from 11 trading companies, such as OO, etc. from 11 trading companies, and filed a return on each tax base and tax amount for the year 203, after deducting the input tax amount on the said tax invoice from the output tax amount, and deducting the Defendant from the output tax amount on the said tax invoice, and filed a return on each of the tax base and tax amount attributed to the Defendant for the first period portion, second period portion, value added tax for the year 2004, and corporate tax for the business year 2004.

C. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, from November 8, 2004 to July 22, 2005, conducted the investigation of tax offense against the non-party company (hereinafter "the investigation of the tax offense of this case") and reported that the non-party company purchased and exported the gold bullion of this case and reported it to the non-party company to export it through the relevant company and organized public offering.

On October 10, 2005, the above tax invoice was recognized as a different tax invoice, and the defendant notified the defendant as taxation data. On October 10, 2005, the defendant notified the non-party company of value-added tax for the first term of 2,592,071,640, value-added tax for the second term of 4,265,587,310, value-added tax for the first term of 2004, value-added tax for 2,854,262,120, value-added tax for the second term of 204, 365,518,630, and corporate tax for the business year of 203, 94,189,750, corporate tax for the second term of 204, and corporate tax for the business year of 204, 624,474,680, respectively.

D. Meanwhile, when the defendant was found to have been guilty of tax evasion against the non-party company and the plaintiff through the investigation of the tax offense of this case, the defendant, on December 31, 2003, which was the date when the non-party company's liability to pay corporate tax for the second term of 2003 and the corporate tax for the business year of 2003, owned 98,000 shares (98%) out of 100,00 shares issued by the non-party company, and was an oligopolistic shareholder who owned the non-party company's 99 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7930 of Apr. 28, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "former Framework Act on National Taxes") and seized each of the above real estate under the name of the non-party company and the second taxpayer under the title of 10527 of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 10527 of Apr. 4, 2011; hereinafter the same).

E. On May 16, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Plaintiff for the cancellation of each of the instant seizure dispositions against each of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not have any notice of payment before each of the instant seizure dispositions, and that the Plaintiff was not an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company at the time. However, the Defendant rejected the said application on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be acknowledged on the 26th of the same month (hereinafter “instant rejection disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-1-2, Eul evidence 3-1-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The defendant's assertion

Of the instant lawsuits, the part concerning the revocation of the instant refusal disposition is unlawful without going through the previous trial proceedings.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Articles 55(1) and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provide that any administrative litigation against the "disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the tax laws" may not be filed without going through a request for examination or a request for adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon. Article 2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the "tax-related Acts" refers to the Act that provides the items and rates of national taxes, the National Tax Collection Act, the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Adjustment of International Taxes Act, the Punishment of Tax Act and the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders, the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders, and the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders, and the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders. Therefore, the disposition of seizure of the taxpayer's property belongs to the disposition of arrears under the National Tax Collection Act, and the disposition

As to the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties concerned about the fact that the Plaintiff did not undergo a request for examination or a request for adjudication under the Framework Act on National Taxes against the rejection disposition of this case. Thus, the part concerning the request for revocation of the instant rejection disposition of this case, which was filed without undergoing the previous trial

3. Whether each of the attachment dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① At the time of seizure, the Plaintiff was not an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company and was not in the position of the second taxpayer. ② Even if not, the Defendant seized each of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff without giving a notice of payment or any other tax disposition to the second taxpayer under Article 12 of the former National Tax Collection Act.

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is invalid because there are such substantive and procedural defects as above, and such defects are serious and apparent.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to the first argument (whether the plaintiff constitutes the second taxpayer of the non-party company)

Article 39 (1) 2 (a) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes 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 second liability to pay such shortage shall be the person who is liable to pay the national tax, and the person who actually exercises the rights to 51/10 or more of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of the corporation among the shareholders (referring to the shareholders and their relatives and other related persons prescribed by the Presidential Decree, who hold not less than 51/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of the corporation; hereinafter the same shall apply).

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 2, the plaintiff held 98,00 shares issued by the non-party company as of December 31, 2003, the date when the liability to pay the second-term value-added tax for the year 2003 and the corporate tax for the business year 2003 was established, and held 98,00 shares issued by the non-party company as of December 31, 200 and held 98,00 shares (98%) as representative director of the non-party company. Thus, inasmuch as there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff is not able to exercise the shareholder's right for the above shares at the time, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff falls under the secondary taxpayer under Article 39 (1) 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du983, Sept. 11, 2008). This part of

2) Determination on the second argument

Article 24 (2) of the former National Tax Collection Act provides that the director of a tax office may seize the taxpayer's property to the extent of the estimated amount of national taxes if he/she finds that the taxpayer cannot collect national taxes after the determination of national taxes due to the reasons provided for in Article 14 (1) of the same Act, and Article 14 (1) of the same Act provides that "when it is recognized that there is an act of evading national taxes" under subparagraph 7 of the same Article.

In light of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the whole pleadings as seen earlier, the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted the investigation of the tax offense of this case against the non-party company and its representative director from November 8, 2004 to July 22, 2005; (b) reported that the non-party company purchased gold bullion and its export to the plaintiff; (c) notified the defendant of the relevant tax invoice as taxation data; and (d) notified the defendant of the relevant tax invoice to the non-party under Article 24 (2) and Article 14 (1) 7 of the former National Tax Collection Act; and (e) after then, the fact that the non-party company filed a complaint with the Seoul Central District Tax Office on the non-party 2 and the non-party company under Article 9 (1) 9-1 and 2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; and (e) the non-party 2, the Seoul Central District Tax Office did not recognize the non-party 4's imposition of corporate tax for the non-party 20 years prior to the above imposition of taxes.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Among the lawsuits of this case, the part of the claim for revocation of the rejection disposition of this case is unlawful, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as they are without merit.