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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 158,294,580 against the Plaintiff on November 14, 2012 is revoked.

A. BB Co., Ltd. (the representativeCC; hereinafter referred to as the “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) is a company established on August 19, 2005 for the purpose of funeral business and real estate development business, and its capital is KRW 50,000,000 for capital and the total number of issued stocks is KRW 10,000 for 10,000 for each share (5,000 per share).

B. At the time of the incorporation of the non-party company, the shareholders were transferred to the leastCC, the plaintiff, and the ParkG, respectively, the shares owned in around 2007 were transferred to the non-party company after ED (30% of the shares), E (30%) and EF (40% of the shares), but they were transferred to the non-party company the shares owned in around 2007. The plaintiff acquired 1,00 shares from E, 1,90 shares from E, 1,00 shares from E, 4,00 shares from E, 4,00 shares from E, 4,00 shares from E, 4,00 shares from LF, and 2,00 shares from E. At the time of the corporate tax return of the non-party company in the business year of 207 as follows:

C. The Defendant notified Nonparty Company 207-201 to KRW 517,878,020 of corporate tax for the portion omitted in sales for the business year of 2007-201, but decided on June 30, 201, the above tax amount cannot be collected from the Nonparty Company as it closed the business on or around June 30, 201 without payment by the Nonparty Company. On November 8, 2012, the Defendant designated Nonparty Company as the secondary taxpayer and notified Nonparty Company 158,294,580 won according to the Plaintiff’s share ratio as indicated below (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 22, 2013, but on September 2013, 2013.

13. A decision of dismissal was received;

Facts that there is no dispute about recognition, and described in Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1 to 4, before oral argument.

The purpose of body

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff was registered as a director of the non-party company, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the shares of the non-party company were transferred before the disposition of this case was taken, and was unaware of the fact that the shares were registered as a shareholder of the non-party company. In addition, the Plaintiff did not exercise its rights by exercising its voting rights as a shareholder of the non-party company, and

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

(i) The meaning of Article 39(1)2(a) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “the Act”) is that all the persons falling under an oligopolistic shareholder who actually exercises rights over 51/100 or more of the total number of issued and outstanding shares shall bear the secondary tax liability: Provided, That the scope of liability is limited within the scope of one’s own shares. It does not require that a single shareholder falling under an oligopolistic shareholder actually exercises the rights over 51/10 or more of the shares, and the exercise of rights over 51/10 or more of the shares as referred to in the above item (a) is not necessarily required to have actual exercise the rights, and it is sufficient to say that the exercise of rights is within a position where a shareholder is able to exercise the rights on the shares held as of the date of establishment of tax liability. In addition, whether the shares fall under an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39(2)2(a) of the Act should be determined based on the list of shareholders or shareholders.

D. The above facts and the above legal principles are as follows. The plaintiff, who is recognized as an oligopolistic shareholder under the non-party company's statement of stock movement, must directly prove the fact that he was subject to the illegal use of shareholder's name. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the second tax liability is legitimate for the plaintiff, who is an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)