원고는 제2차 납세의무를 지는 과점주주에 해당함[국승]
Seoul High Court 2013Nu26035 (Seoul High Court 2014.05.22)
The plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder with the secondary tax liability.
Even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the circumstances of its assertion were to be considered, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff is merely a next-name shareholder in the form of a delinquent corporation, and it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff actually exercised or is in the position to exercise the right to shares among the shares of delinquent corporations acquired under its name.
2014du8643 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax
KimA
Head of Seocho Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu26035 Decided May 22, 2014
October 15, 2014
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In light of the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, the court determines the assertion of facts free of charge in accordance with logical and empirical rules, based on the principle of logic and experience and the principle of equity, so long as it does not go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the value judgment and fact-finding belong to the discretion of the fact-finding court, and the fact-finding duly established by the fact-finding court is binding on the court of final appeal (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Articles 202
For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s primary liability for tax payment is an oligopolistic shareholder, who actually exercises or is in the position to exercise the right to shares held in the lower judgment among the shares of a delinquent corporation, which was acquired under the name of the Plaintiff, based on the evidence presented by the Plaintiff and the circumstances of its assertion, even if all of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff were considered, and that the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder with whom the secondary liability for tax payment is liable, since it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff has exercised or is in the position to exercise the right
The purport of the grounds of appeal is to dispute the above judgment of the court below, and it is merely an error in the selection of evidence, value judgment, and fact-finding based on the free evaluation of evidence belonging to the court of fact-finding. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to oligopolistic shareholders liable for secondary tax
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.