2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 2% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

A. The Defendant, at the time of the establishment of the tax liability, designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of ○○ Telecom, pursuant to Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006) on the ground that the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder holding 25,500 shares of 30,000 shares of ○○ Telecom (85%) with respect to national tax in arrears (hereinafter “national tax in arrears”), and imposed the value-added tax, corporate tax, and labor income tax on the Plaintiff on December 26, 2006, as stated in the purport of the disposition on imposition of national tax in arrears (hereinafter “instant disposition on imposition in arrears”), on the ground that the Plaintiff is the oligopolistic shareholder holding 25,50 shares of ○○ Telecom (85% shares), and imposed the tax in arrears for 204 years excluding the national tax in arrears (hereinafter “instant disposition on imposition in arrears”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an objection against each of the instant dispositions and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on November 6, 2007.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 15 evidence (including more than one number), Eul 1 and 2 evidence

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) On October 26, 2004, the Plaintiff transferred 25,500 shares of ○○ Telecom and the right of management to 3.5 million won. Nonparty 1 was appointed as representative director and exercised de facto management right on February 21, 2005, immediately after acquiring ○○ Telecom. Thus, each of the instant dispositions against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder as of the date on which the obligation to pay the national tax in arrears was established is unlawful.

2) Since 2005, ○○ Telecom had already been in the state of having no real sales since early 2005, ○○○ Telecom, which had been acquired by ○○○○○ Telecom, and ○○○○○ Telecom issued a false tax invoice of KRW 924,00,000 in total of the value of supply, instead of not supplying any goods to ○○○ Stock Company from November 2005 to January 206, and thus, the pertinent delinquent national taxes were falsified without actual sales, and each of the instant dispositions based thereon was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 39 (Secondary Tax Liability of Investors)

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On July 2, 1999, the Plaintiff established the ○○ Telecom for the purpose of developing and selling car trouble devices and neons, etc., and operated it as the representative director. On October 26, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with 25,500 shares of ○○ Telecom owned by the Plaintiff (the shares owned by the Plaintiff 85%; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the total management right of ○○ Telecom (the cash 150 million won and the guaranteed debt 200 million won borne by the Plaintiff) on December 6, 2004, and received cash 50 million won out of the purchase price from the Yellow Ship. < Amended by Act No. 7216, Dec. 6, 2004>

2) When the Plaintiff delayed the acquisition of guaranteed liability and the payment of the balance of 100 million won in cash under the instant contract for the transfer, it entered into an agreement again with the Yellow Ship on March 3, 2005 (hereinafter the agreement of this case). According to the agreement of this case, yellow Ship: (a) simultaneously appoints a new representative director of ○○○ Telecom; (b) cancels its duty to guarantee the Plaintiff, etc. relating to ○○○ Telecom; (c) the remaining amount of KRW 100 million was paid in three equal installments up to May; (d) the Plaintiff promptly transferred all documents pertaining to the change of the representative director’s title to the Yellow Ship; and (e) the Plaintiff agreed to change the name of 13,500 among the shares owned by the instant case, only 13,500 (45% of the shares ratio); (b) the Plaintiff resigned the representative director on February 21, 2005; and (b) the Plaintiff was in fact retired from ○○○○’s corporate register on the date of 2000.

3) In accordance with the instant agreement on March 4, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a share transfer agreement that transfers 13,500 shares of the instant shares to Kim○, nominated by Yellow Line, (45%) and entered into a share transfer agreement that transfers all of the instant shares to Kim○ on July 1, 2005.

4) On August 30, 2005, the Plaintiff and the guarantor of the Plaintiff were subject to a provisional attachment from the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund due to the guarantee obligation for the ○○ Telecom that the YE decided to take over. On August 16, 2005, the Plaintiff made payment to the Plaintiff on September 30, 2005, 100 million won in the balance of the stock holding price of the instant case between YE and YE, and the provisional attachment was terminated. The Plaintiff did not make payment to the Plaintiff on September 30, 2005, 40% in the remainder of the stocks owned by the Plaintiff to the person designated by YEE or YEN on March 4, 2005 (this case appears to have been 13,500,000 won in the shares of the instant case, excluding 13,500,000,000 won in the shares of the Plaintiff). On October 26, 2005, the YEE made payment of the balance of the loan 1414.

5) On December 12, 2005, 2005, ○○ Telecom entered the minutes of the general meeting of shareholders, consisting of ○○○○○, a shareholder, and the Plaintiff’s attending the meeting, and registered ○○○○, as a director or representative director, on the basis of which the 30,000 shares issued and outstanding, ○○○○, among the 30,000 shares, owned 25,50 shares in the 30,000 shares, 3,000 shares (10%) by the Plaintiff, and 1,50 shares (5%) by Kim Ho-ho (1,50 shares ratio) by the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, the number of shares owned in the instant case changed to the ○○○. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were not aware of the fact that the ○○○○ was appointed as the representative director by the yellow line.

6) However, according to the detailed statement of changes in stocks, etc. submitted by ○○ Telecom to the Defendant at the time of filing a corporate tax return in 2005 (hereinafter the detailed statement of this case), the Plaintiff still holds the shares (85% of the shares) of this case at the same time as at the time of concluding the transfer contract of this case (other, Kim J-jin, Kim-ho, and ○○ Telecom hold each 1,50 shares, 5% of their shares), and ○○ Telecom did not file any report with the Defendant on matters concerning changes in stocks after the transfer contract of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 10, Gap 13, 14, 15, Eul 1 through 5 (including a lot number confusion) and the witness officer ○○-only testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In order to impose the secondary tax liability on a shareholder of a corporation who has defaulted in national taxes pursuant to Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is necessary that the shareholder is an oligopolistic shareholder who owns not less than 51/100 of the stocks issued by the corporation at the time when the liability to pay national taxes is established and is in a position to substantially control the operation of the corporation by exercising the right to the stocks in question. The fact that the shareholder is registered as a shareholder on the shareholder registry, etc. of the corporation in form is an oligopolistic shareholder cannot immediately impose the secondary tax liability.

2) However, in full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff entered into a transfer contract of this case with the YY and transferred 13,500 shares out of the shares owned by the YY to Kim ○, designated by the YE on March 4, 2005 through the agreement of this case. On August 16, 2007, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the remaining shares to 12,000 shares under the condition that the Plaintiff shall prepare a performance memorandum with the YE and perform the duty under the agreement of this case. However, on December 12, 2005, until the time the ○○○○○○’s shareholders’ meeting was held to appoint the ○○ as the representative director, it is reasonable to view that there was no change of title to transfer 25,50 shares owned by the Plaintiff to ○○○, which was already transferred to ○○, and thus, it may not be deemed that the Plaintiff had completed all subsequent procedures to transfer the entire shares owned by the ○○○, which did not have been paid the entire shares owned by the Plaintiff.

However, notwithstanding the transfer contract of this case, until the Plaintiff transferred 13,400 shares of the shares owned by ○○○ to Kim○ on March 4, 2005 pursuant to the agreement of this case, the Plaintiff was an oligopolistic shareholder who owned 85% of the shares issued by ○○○○’s compact and was in a position in which the Plaintiff could actually control the management of ○○○○ Telecom by exercising its shareholder’s rights.

Therefore, with respect to the national tax in arrears for 2004, which was prior to March 4, 2005, the date of establishing the tax liability, the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for the second taxpayer under Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. On the other hand, with respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the national tax in arrears for the year 2004, which was the date of establishing the tax liability, would be due to a false manipulation in sales without actual sales, it is clear that the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the illegality of the disposition of taxation in 2005, and it does not relate to the illegality of the disposition of taxation in 2004, and even if it is alleged in relation to the disposition of taxation in 2004, there is no evidence to support the imposition of the national tax in arrears for 2004 ○○

3) Ultimately, with respect to the national taxes in arrears after December 31, 2005, which were after the date of establishing the tax liability, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been an oligopolistic shareholder holding more than 51% of the shares of ○○ Telecom at the time of the establishment of the tax liability, and thus, the disposition of imposition after 2005 of the instant case is unlawful without any further review. As to the national taxes in arrears in 2004, the Plaintiff was an oligopolistic shareholder holding more than 51% of the shares of ○○ Telecom at the time of the establishment of the tax liability, and the disposition of imposition in 204 of the instant case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.