according to the share ratio to the Plaintiff, who is the spouse of △△△△△ in controlling the management of the corporation

§ 1. The second taxpayer for the tax in arrears shall be designated and the corporate tax or corporation, as described in the table.

The notice of the provisional value tax was given (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 10, 2012, and dismissed on January 27, 2014.

The decision was rendered.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 14, 18 (if / 10)

set forth in subparagraph 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings. The same shall apply hereinafter)

2. Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As to whether the Plaintiff is a beneficial owner

1) The plaintiff's assertion

9,000 shares issued by the corporation in the name of the title (hereinafter referred to as "the shares in this case")

The name of △△△△ is stolen by the Plaintiff and is registered in the register of shareholders of the instant corporation, and not so.

C. The instant shares are owned by △△△△△ and are merely owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is merely a nominal shareholder, and the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the beneficial shareholder of the instant shares is unlawful.

(ii) the facts of recognition

A) The instant corporation was established on November 22, 200 with capital of KRW 100 million; and

On July 26, 2007, the capital was increased to 300 million won by offering capital increase with capital increase. The corporation of this case

The status of holding stocks on the register of shareholders shall be as follows:

B) On March 31, 2006, the Plaintiff was registered as an auditor on the corporate register of the instant corporation.

C) A tax investigation conducted around August 201 with respect to the instant corporation was conducted on and after August 2011.

17. The results of the tax investigation were notified.

라) 원고는 2012. 1. 6. 서울 강남구 도곡동 xxx에 위치한 타워팰리스 제에이동

On February 21, 2012, the right to lease on a deposit basis as to Xxxxx was transferred to ○○○○○, Inc., and the right to lease on a deposit basis was completed.

E) On November 13, 2012, Korea shall avoid a taxation claim under the instant disposition against the Plaintiff.

With respect to ○○○, Inc., a preservation bond, the cancellation of the contract on the transfer of the right to lease on a deposit basis.

filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 10, Witness △△△

The purport of the whole

3) Determination

A) The former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010), regarding corporate tax for the business year 2009

With respect to the pre-amended corporate tax or value-added tax, the Act on December 31, 201

Whether it constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39(2) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of oligopolistic Stockholders

of the shares held by the shares held by the shares held by the shares held by the

the shareholders' list or a statement of the status of stock transfer by the tax authority; or

corporation register, etc. shall be proved by the data such as

even if the shareholder appears to be a shareholder, the name of the shareholder was stolen or not the name of the actual owner.

(2) If there are circumstances, such as registration in the name of the vehicle, only the name of the

Although it cannot be deemed to be a shareholder, the nominal owner who asserts that it is not a shareholder must prove that it is not a shareholder (by law).

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Du1615 decided July 9, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2008Du983 Decided September 11, 2008, etc.

B) The Plaintiff’s shares in this case’s list of shareholders or detailed statement of stock transfer status

As seen earlier, since the shares of this case are registered as the owner of the shares, △△△△△

△△△△ even if the ownership was owned by the Plaintiff, which used the Plaintiff’s name, or was held in title by the Plaintiff.

As to whether or not the plaintiff bears the burden of proving it, we examine it.

C) First of all, each evidence set forth above and evidence set forth in Gap 15, 19 through 21, 35 to 38, 8, 9

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are recognized in each statement of evidence.

(1) The name of △△△△△ on November 22, 2000, the corporation of this case, and capital KRW 100 million at the time of its incorporation.

on July 25, 2007, the capital of 200 million won at the time of capital increase for consideration in the one bank account shall be held in the name of △△△△△△.

was withdrawn and paid from the new bank account.

(2) On February 1, 2012, the Plaintiff’s shareholder right to the instant shares against the instant corporation.

In a lawsuit for confirmation of non-existence, the judgment in favor was pronounced.

(3) 서울지방국세청은 2014. 5. 12.부터 이 사건 법인의 계열회사인 dddd주식회사의 주식 명의신탁 등과 관련한 세무조사를 실시한 후, 2014. 9. 15.경 △△△에게, ㅇㅇㅇㅇ 주식회사의 주식 중 원고 및 △△△ 명의로 등재되어 있다가 제3자

§ 40,000,000,000,000

The results of the investigation were notified.

D) However, the aforementioned evidence and evidence No. B’s evidence No. 11 reveal the overall purport of the pleadings.

In light of the following facts and circumstances, the circumstances such as Paragraph (c) above and the △△△△△

Witness's testimony of △△△△△ that seems to conform to the identity theft and other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff are limited.

in this case, it is not sufficient to recognize the identity theft or the title trust, and there is a different evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) the Corporation.

① The Plaintiff is the spouse of △△△△△△△△. The Plaintiff did not manage his seal imprint, etc. separately and was appointed as an auditor by a corporation and issued a seal imprint and a seal imprint to △△△△

A. The Plaintiff’s act of acquiring shares, etc. in the name of the Plaintiff, even if it was actually conducted by △△△△△△△, may be deemed that the Plaintiff had the right to representation for △△△△△△△△△△△△△, and thus, it may be deemed that the Plaintiff did not take any measures even after the Plaintiff became aware of the fact.

② The Plaintiff was established from 2000 to 30% shares of the Plaintiff’s 30% shares.

The ownership of shares has been maintained in the name of shares, and in light of the long-term ownership period, the ownership of shares has been long.

person who has been notified of his rights or duties, at least tax payment, etc.

C. The name of some of the shares of the corporation of this case is changed as the plaintiff's children, etc.

A case of internal consultation with a family has occurred. The Plaintiff from around 2002, earned income, interest income, and

Since business income, etc. has been earned and taxes have been paid, at all on tax issues, etc.

It is difficult to view that it is difficult to view that the financial condition of the instant legal entity is difficult to make it difficult to do so.

only when the shares of this case occurred in 2011, the shares of this case are in its own name.

The plaintiff's assertion that he/she was aware of the fact is difficult to obtain hotly.

③ The instant corporation is a corporation whose entire shares are owned by the family members of △△△△△, and the Plaintiff, as a living together with his family members, shall enjoy the benefits together with △△△△△

△△△△△△ and the Plaintiff shall be divided into more than one person’s name.

shares of 30% in the name of the plaintiff under an economic judgment that ownership is more favorable;

The corporation of this case is normally operated and there is a need to do so.

If no action is taken, the Plaintiff’s individual is liable to pay taxes due to such stock name.

Only when taking into account the circumstances that would be the name theft or the title trust, and at the same time, the name of the plaintiff

세금 25억 원의 타워팰리스 전세권을 제3자에게 양도하였다. 위와 같은 일련의 과정에

The plaintiff's assertion of identity theft or title trust is difficult to believe it as it is, and the plaintiff's beneficial shareholder

On the premise that taxation is based on the premise that it is not extremely unfair from the perspective of equity.

(4) The acquisition fund and the capital increase for the shares of this case from the account in the name of △△△△.

As seen earlier, the plaintiff and △△△△△ shall reside together with the husband and wife.

Since it was the relationship between life and life, it is difficult to see that the funds between two persons are clearly divided; and

No evidence exists as to the fact that the account was traded solely with the funds of △△△△△

Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that △△△△△△ alone acquired the instant shares.

⑤ The instant decision on the confirmation of shareholders’ rights of the instant case was concluded without any substantial dispute between the parties.

shares in the name of the plaintiff in relation to the shares of the ddddd Co., Ltd. are only subject to △△

Although a tax investigation was conducted by title trust, this case is without fail to reach the above conclusion.

It can not be viewed that it should be included.

6. The plaintiff received dividends from the corporation of this case or exercised voting rights

Even if there is no fact that the corporation of this case paid dividends to its shareholders, there is no fact

It appears that the shareholder can choose whether to exercise voting rights, so actual exercise voting rights.

The fact that the Plaintiff did not appear to be the actual shareholder is difficult.

(7) Where a plaintiff intends to exercise his/her voting right as a shareholder, he/she may prevent such exercise.

No circumstances are also visible.

E) Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff is a beneficial shareholder of the instant shares, and contrary thereto.

The plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

B. As to whether the supplement of the secondary tax liability is contrary to the supplement of the secondary tax liability

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The tax amount in arrears of the corporation of this case reduced by a corrective disposition, etc. shall remain approximately 40 billion won.

On the other hand, the defendant seized the property of the corporation of this case equivalent to approximately KRW 164.7 billion.

As the preservation measures are completed, the assets of the instant legal entity are insufficient to cover the delinquent tax amount.

Therefore, the instant disposition does not meet the requirements for designating the secondary taxpayer.

Therefore, it is illegal.

2) Determination

In order to establish the secondary tax liability, there is a shortage of collection in the primary tax liability.

However, as long as the main liability for tax payment is not paid, the occurrence of the shortage is essential.

The shortage is specifically caused by the execution of the disposition on default against the principal taxpayer in reality.

(2) If the disposition on default is made, it shall be deemed that there is an objective shortage in collection;

If it is recognized, it should be adequate (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10718, May 14, 2004).

Pursuant to the purport of the whole of entry and pleading of evidence Nos. 24 through 33, 41 through 49, and 53

- the Defendant’s claim for the remaining purchase price bond of the corporation of this case, urban development expense refund bond, and trust account withdrawal claim.

There is a fact that the procedure for delinquency in the seizure of claims against claims, etc. is in progress, but prior to the fact of the above recognition.

in light of the following circumstances known in addition to the purport of the entire evidence

In light of the nature of the second tax liability, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to be contrary to the supplement of the second tax liability. Accordingly, this part

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① As to the grounds for the Plaintiff’s failure to pay taxes, the instant legal entity

The apartment sales business of 3,316 households in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, was the executor of the apartment sales business. It is revealed that due to the defective construction of the Si construction and the rejection of defective repair, there were difficulties in financial conditions due to the buyer's refusal to move in. In fact, the instant corporation was declared bankrupt on August 27, 2014.

② As seen earlier, the Defendant’s proceeding is underway with respect to the instant corporate claims.

did not have yet been appropriated for the delinquent tax amount at the time of the instant disposition;

A dispute between the garnishee and the third party obligor as to whether each such claim can be appropriated for the actual amount in arrears.

In this case, there is no legal uncertainty, and thus, delinquent taxes are not due to the bonds seized at the time of the disposition of this case.

It is difficult to see that it is clear that all amounts can be appropriated.

③ At present, after the disposition of this case, the amount of tax on the corporation of this case is determined.

It seems that the delinquent tax amount exceeding 10 billion won still remains.

C. Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

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

The imposition of each corporate tax or value-added tax listed in attached Form 1 shall be revoked where the defendant of the Gu office designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer of xx corporation and made the plaintiff as the second taxpayer.

A. xx corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “corporation of this case”) was a corporation established for real estate development projects, etc. on November 22, 2000, and was in arrears with 84,058,967,310 won including corporate tax, etc. for the business year 2009. (B) The Defendant deemed that the aforementioned delinquent tax cannot be collected from the corporation of this case as a relative, and deemed that the Plaintiff, etc. constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder who owns 100% of the stocks of the corporation of this case as a relative