2. The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Defendant: (a) reported byCC on the ground that it included processing sales and processing purchases and submitted a list of total tax invoices by seller; (b) deducted the processed sales and purchase parts from the value-added tax for the year 2008; and (c) added additional tax on the aggregate of the value-added tax for the year 2005 - the value-added tax for the year 2008 and the corporate tax for the year 2008 529,884,560.

B. The Defendant, on October 26, 2009, did not pay the above value-added tax and corporate tax by the due date, on the ground that the Plaintiffs constituted oligopolistic shareholders holding 81.5% (the Plaintiff’s TA75% + Plaintiff 6.5%) of the total shares issued by theCC as of the date on which the Plaintiffs’ tax liability was established, designated the Plaintiffs as the secondary taxpayer of theCC, and notified the Plaintiffs of the amount indicated in the disposition list as shown in attached Table 1, according to the equity shares out of the above delinquent tax amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On January 15, 2010, the Plaintiff through an objection filed on December 14, 2009, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 15, 2010, but was dismissed on April 8, 2010.

D. The Plaintiffs are married couple.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings as to Gap evidence No. 1. 2 (including the provisional number)

2. Determination on the legitimacy of Plaintiff leB’s lawsuit

According to Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Articles 55(1), 56(2), and 56(4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an administrative litigation may be initiated against an illegal disposition under a national tax-related tax law only through a legitimate request for examination and a request for adjudgment. In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff leapb filed a request for examination or a request for adjudgment with respect to the disposition in this case, the lawsuit in this case by the plaintiff leB is unlawful because it

3. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The plaintiff TA's assertion

1) On January 2, 2005, the Plaintiff Samsung transferred the 69,000 shares ofCC to KimD on the basis of payment in kind for the obligation of 30,000,000 won. Accordingly, the shares in the Plaintiff Samsung and his spouse are merely 47% from the above transfer date and do not constitute an oligopolistic shareholder. Accordingly, it is unlawful for the Defendant to designate Plaintiff Samsung as the secondary taxpayer ofCC and to take the instant disposition.

2) The imposition of value-added tax in 2005 that the Defendant imposed onCC in 2008 - the imposition of value-added tax in 2008 is imposed without any legal basis. Thus, the instant disposition that constitutes secondary tax liability on the premise thatCC’s tax liability is illegal.

B. Key statute

Attached 2. The entry (the year of the amendment shall not be indicated in the case of personal use).

C. Determination

1) Whether it constitutes an oligopolistic stockholder

Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a member of a group of stockholders who actually exercises the rights to shares exceeding 50% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of a corporation is an oligopolistic shareholder and imposes secondary tax liability on such shareholder group with respect to the national tax in arrears. Since the oligopolistic shareholder is deemed to have a position of de facto control over the company’s management through the exercise of voting rights at a general meeting of shareholders depending on the number of its shares owned, it shall be deemed that the oligopolistic shareholder is in a position of de facto control over the company’s management (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du983, Sept. 11, 2008). Therefore, in determining whether a shareholder falls under an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the fact of ownership of shares shall be proven by evidence, such as a list of shareholders, a statement of stock movement, or a list of corporate register, etc., but, in light of the above evidence, if a shareholder is registered under a name other than the de facto ownership.

According to the evidence evidence evidence evidence Nos. 3 and 4, it is reasonable to view that, as of December 31, 2005, the Plaintiff Company owned 150,000 shares equivalent to 200,000% of the total issued shares on the statement on the state of fluctuation, such asCC’s stocks as of December 31, 2005, and that there was no report on the change in the share ratio between December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2008. Under the above facts, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff Company owned shares exceeding 50% of the total issued shares, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff Company actually exercised the right to share or equity shares as an oligopolistic shareholder holding shares exceeding 50% of the total issued shares, and otherwise, the Plaintiff Company’s assertion that the Plaintiff Company exceeded 69,000 shares owned by the Plaintiff Company 30% of the total issued shares or that there was no other evidence that the Plaintiff Company 309 or 900% shares shares were transferred.

(ii) the existence of a taxation basis law

Since value-added tax has a tax liability only for an actual supplier of goods and services, so the so-called "full-time data" that only receives a tax invoice without any supply of goods and services does not constitute an entrepreneur under the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus no value-added tax or additional tax may be imposed except for punishment under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, in the case of so-called "part data" that actually supplies goods and services, it constitutes an entrepreneur under the Value-Added Tax Act

In addition, additional tax to be imposed on the non-performing entry of the aggregate tax invoice in Article 22(3) and (4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4663, Dec. 31, 1993; Act No. 4808, Dec. 22, 1994; Act No. 5032, Dec. 29, 1995); as for the non-performing entry of the aggregate tax invoice by customer in order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, the entrepreneur liable to pay value-added taxes shall be imposed on the tax authority by clearly stating the fact that the entry of the aggregate tax invoice by customer in violation of the above provision is true, and if the entrepreneur fails to enter all or part of the registration number or supply value by customer in the aggregate tax invoice, or enters it differently from the fact, the entrepreneur’s duty to pay the aggregate of the total tax invoice by adding the amount of the principal tax calculated by the tax item under the relevant tax law as well as the amount of the processed tax invoice by adding the total tax invoice by 20.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each number), and the overall purport of the pleadings in part of witness KimD testimony,CC may recognize the fact that part of goods or services was actually supplied in around 2005 - 2008, under the Value-Added Tax Act, it constitutes a business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act subject to the imposition of value-added tax and additional tax. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed unlawful that the defendant imposed a penalty tax on theCC on the part of the seller and seller under Article 22(3) and (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act. Ultimately, the above assertion by the plaintiff TA is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff leB's lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the claim of this case by the plaintiff DanB is dismissed as it is without merit.