2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 90% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder 10% is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

A. On October 21, 1997, a company established in 000-0 Dong 000-0, Seoul for the purpose of producing and selling domestic and foreign gambling facilities for pharmaceutical companies (hereinafter referred to as "non-foreign company") was in arrears with 10 cases, including corporate tax, 273,693,840, and closed around September 2004.

B. According to the statement on the changes in stocks, etc. of the non-party company in 202, 2003, and 2004, among the total number of issued stocks of the non-party company in the business year of 4,000, the plaintiff owned 19,600 shares with 49% of the plaintiff among the total number of issued stocks of the non-party company, and 18,800 shares with 47% of Kim 00, and 400 shares with 18,800 shares with 47% of the total number of issued stocks of the non-party company, and the remaining 4% shares were owned by 2% respectively. Meanwhile, Kim 00 was married on May 22, 2003

C. The defendant, upon the non-party company's failure to pay corporate tax as above, deemed the plaintiff and Kim 00 as the oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company as the second taxpayer on Nov. 24, 2004 and designated the plaintiff and Kim 00 as the second taxpayer of the non-party company on Nov. 24, 2004. The plaintiff and Kim 00 divorced on May 22, 2003 and did not correspond to the oligopolistic shareholder, and Kim 00 determined that the plaintiff and the actual owner of Kim 00 shares in the form of shareholders are the plaintiff and revoked the second taxpayer's designation as the second taxpayer on Dec. 19, 2004. After considering that the plaintiff was an oligopolistic shareholder with the non-party company's share of 96% (49% + 00% of the plaintiff's share) (49% + 00% of the plaintiff's share in the non-party company's second taxpayer on Sep. 26, 2005, excluding the plaintiff's share in arrears No.

D. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on March 24, 2006, but was dismissed on October 25, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, evidence No. 2-1 through 5, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 5-1 through 3, evidence No. 6, evidence No. 1-3, evidence No. 2-1 through 5, evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to procedural defects

The Defendant, while serving a notice of payment on each of the instant dispositions by public notice, omitted service by public notice on the items of taxation listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 8 through 10, and the notice of payment on each of the instant dispositions by public notice does not contain any indication on the basis of calculation of the amount of tax. Therefore, each of the instant dispositions

(2) As to substantive defects

In the following sense, each of the instant dispositions, which was reported differently by the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff was not the owner of Kim 00 shares, is unlawful.

(A) The non-party company is a company established to deliver packaging gambling to the non-party company that is 00 natives of Kim 00 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") in which the non-party company is her head of the company. In light of the fact that Kim 00 was involved in the management of the non-party company, such as serving the representative director of the non-party company from October 30, 1997 to January 31, 200, Kim 00 is not a nominal investor.

(B) Even if Kim 00 shares are owned by the Plaintiff, according to Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, if the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from the property that requires a registration, etc. in the transfer or exercise of the right, the value of the property shall be deemed to have been donated to the actual owner on the day when the property is registered, etc. as the nominal owner notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and accordingly, Kim 00 shares shall be deemed to have been donated to Kim 00 as all of them are donated to

(C) In addition, the Plaintiff agreed on May 22, 2003 that the property registered in his/her own name will be owned by each party while a divorce between the Plaintiff and Kim 00 on May 22, 2003. As such, Kim 00, under the above property division agreement, was finally acquired the Kim 00 shares

(b) Related statutes;

[Attachment 2] The entry is as follows.

C. Determination

(1) As to procedural defects

(A) Facts of recognition

In the notice of each of the dispositions of this case, when the defendant served a notice of payment stating the details of national taxes and delinquent amount on the plaintiff's domicile along with the tax payment notice stating the taxable year, tax item, tax amount, the basis for calculation thereof, the deadline for payment, the place for payment, etc., but the plaintiff was unable to serve a notice of payment on the plaintiff's domicile due to the plaintiff's failure to reside in his domicile due to an overseas system, etc., the above notice of payment and the tax payment notice of the tax items listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 8 and 9 (hereinafter referred to as "disposition Nos. 8 and 9 of this case") were served on November 7, 2005

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 2-1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 3-1 through 9, Evidence Nos. 5, Evidence Nos. 9-1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(B) Whether procedural defects are procedural defects

1) Disposition Nos. 8 and 9 of this case

According to the facts found above, the disposition of this case Nos. 8 and 9 is null and void because the notice of payment, etc. is not served. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion seeking revocation is with merit.

2) Each of the instant dispositions, except for the instant dispositions Nos. 8 and 9, (hereinafter referred to as “the instant dispositions”).

Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when collecting a national tax, etc. from a secondary taxpayer is to be notified by a notice of payment stating necessary matters (the taxable year, tax item, tax amount, the basis for calculation, payment period, place of payment, the amount to be collected from a secondary taxpayer, the basis for calculation thereof, and other necessary matters). According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the defendant attached a notice of payment to a notice of payment in service by public notice as well as the grounds for calculation of the tax amount and all the matters to be stated in the notice of payment provided for in Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act, if the above attached notice of payment states in both the grounds for calculation of the tax amount and the matters to be stated in the notice of payment provided for in Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act, it cannot be limited to that the grounds for calculation of the tax amount must be stated in the notice of payment in full in the notice of payment, considering that Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act is fair and at the same time, the taxpayer’s grounds for calculation of the tax amount cannot be justified.

(2) As to the substantive defect (the judgment on the remaining disposition of this case)

(A) Facts of recognition

1) The non-party company, the main business of which is drinking and pharmaceutical products, produced the packaging paper of milk products, in particular, supplied most of the output to the 00 milk industry in which the flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium.

2) From October 30, 1997 to January 31, 200, Kim 00 was registered as the representative director, and from January 31, 200 to January 31, 200 on the corporate register of the non-party company, the non-party company was actually incorporated and managed exclusively by the plaintiff, and Kim 00 did not receive the amount of money such as wages from the non-party company or from the non-party company under any pretext. However, the bank visited the bank when requested the identification of the representative director in connection with the loan of operating funds of the non-party company.

3) According to the statement on the situation of the fluctuation of the shares of the non-party company in the business year of 2002-2004, the plaintiff owns 49,600 shares issued by the non-party company among total 40,000 shares issued by the non-party company (the total number of shares issued by the non-party company in the business year of 2001 to 40,000 shares) and 18,000 shares issued by the non-party company with 49% per share, Kim 00 shares, and the total number of shares issued by the non-party company in the business year of 200 to 2001 was 10,000 shares before the total number of shares issued by the non-party company increased. However, the ratio of shares of the plaintiff and the non-party company were 100 shares before the incorporation of the non-party company and all procedures related to the incorporation and capital increase were fully identified by the plaintiff.

4) From March 2002, the Plaintiff and Kim 00 began to grow separately from the other spouse relationship. On October 21, 2002, Kim 00 was appointed to the Plaintiff as a stockholder and a director (the director was appointed as the auditor at the time when the director was admitted) in the register of shareholders and the register of shareholders (the director was appointed as the director at the time when the director was admitted), but on the other hand, there was no intention to participate in the management so far and there was no intention to participate in the future, so that the Plaintiff and Kim 0 sent a letter of content-certified mail requesting the exclusion from the shareholders and the officers of the non-party company. After that, the Plaintiff and Kim 00 reached a divorce on May 22, 200

5) The non-party company was normally operated until the business year of 2003, and the amount of losses per year increased. However, since the business year of 2004, the amount of net income was deficited due to the termination of the supply contract of the milk packaging paper between 00 business and 00 business, and was closed on September 23, 2004.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 2-1 to 5, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 1-1 to 6, witness Kim 00, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

(B) Determination

1) The actual owner of Kim 00 shares

According to the above facts, although the non-party company is the main revenue source to deliver the milk packaging paper to the non-party company 00 business whose pro-Japanese status was Kim Y0, and Kim 00 was registered on the register by the representative director or auditor, the non-party company actually appears to have arbitrarily handled the shares allocation of each shareholder, including the capital and the payment of capital, up to the incorporation of the company to the company exclusively in charge of its establishment and management, and there was no involvement in the allocation of shares from the company to its incorporation, and the non-party company requested the plaintiff to be excluded from the shareholders and executive officers of the non-party company from March 2002 to the non-party company from March 10 of the same year. At that time, in light of the relation between the plaintiff and the non-party company, including the fact that the non-party company was operated normally at that time, but the Kim 00 did not demand any payment to the plaintiff, the role of the plaintiff and the non-party company Kim Jong-soo company in the form of the non-party company and the plaintiff's owner.

2) Whether the provision on deemed donation applies

The provision on deemed donation under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of the Plaintiff’s assertion is merely a provision that only where gift tax is imposed, the stocks in title trust shall be deemed to have been donated. In determining oligopolistic shareholders related to the designation of the secondary taxpayer of the non-party company that differs from the requirements, time and time for the establishment of the tax liability and the taxpayer, the provision on deemed donation under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act may not be applied as they are (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du4269, Jun. 11, 2002; 2002Du12458, May 13, 2003). The sole reason for the assertion by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed that the Kim00 owned shares in accordance with the said deemed donation

3) Whether a property division agreement is reached

Although the Plaintiff asserted that there was a property division agreement with each other on the property registered in his/her own name at the time of divorce with Kim 00, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was such agreement with regard to the shares of Kim 00, as well as that there was no other evidence to prove that there was such agreement with regard to the shares of Kim 00, and even if Kim 00 already requested that the Plaintiff be excluded from the shareholders of the non-party company around October 2002, the Plaintiff’

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, Kim 00 is merely a shareholder of the non-party company in the form of the non-party company and the shares in the non-party company are 96% in total, and therefore, D, based on the premise that the plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder who actually exercises the right to 96% shares in the non-party company, the remaining disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion that differs from

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case Nos. 8 and 9 is justified, and it is accepted. The plaintiff's remaining claim is rejected as it is decided as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Basic Act

Article 11 (Service by Public Notice)

(1) In case where a person to be served with documents falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the service of documents pursuant to Article 8 shall be deemed to have been made 14 days after the abstract of documents were publicly announced:

1. Where the domicile or business office is located overseas and such service is difficult;

2. Where his domicile or business office is not evident; and

3. Where the person as prescribed in Article 10 (4) fails to serve a document at a place where the document is to be served, and such document is sent by registered mail but returned because of the addressee’s absence

(2) Public notice as provided in paragraph (1) shall be made by posting it on the bulletin board or other appropriate place of the Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu; hereinafter the same shall apply) having jurisdiction over the place where the documents are served, in the Official Gazette or daily newspapers. In such cases, when it is made by means of national tax information and communications networks, it shall be made

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

(1) If the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and a person to whom such ownership belongs exists, the tax-related Acts shall apply to such person to whom such person actually belongs as a taxpayer.

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment of Contributors)

(1) Where the property of a corporation (excluding a corporation whose stocks are listed on the Korea Stock Exchange) is insufficient to cover the national tax, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears that the corporation has imposed on or is to pay, the person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs as of the date on which the liability to pay national taxes is established shall assume the secondary tax liability for such shortage: Provided, That in the case of an oligopolistic stockholder under subparagraph 2, it shall not exceed the amount calculated by multiplying the shortage by the number of stocks issued (excluding non-voting stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or investment amount (in the case of an oligopolistic stockholder under subparagraph 2 (a)

2. An oligopolistic stockholder who falls under any of the following items:

(a) A person who exercises a substantial right over the stocks or investment shares in excess of 50/100 of the total issued stocks or total investments of the relevant corporation;

(b) An honorary chairperson, chairperson, president, vice president, senior managing director, managing director, director, or any other person who actually controls the management of the corporation, notwithstanding the title thereof;

(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1) 2, the term “excess stockholder” means one stockholder or one partner with limited liability and his relatives or other persons having special relations with him as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, whose total amount of stocks owned or investment is not less than 51/100 of the total number of stocks issued or total amount of investment made by the juristic person concerned (hereinafter referred to as “excess stockholder”).

National Tax Collection Act

If the head of a tax office intends to collect national taxes, additional dues or disposition fees for arrears from a person liable for secondary tax payment (including a tax guarantor; hereinafter the same shall apply), he/she shall notify the person liable for secondary tax payment of the tax amount by a payment notice stating the taxable year, additional dues or disposition fees for arrears to be collected from the person liable for secondary tax payment, the grounds for calculation, payment deadline, place of payment, the amount to be collected from the person liable for secondary tax payment, calculation, and other necessary matters. In such cases, he/she shall

Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 45-2 (Presumption of Donation of Title Trust Property)

(1) Notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in case where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from the property which requires a registration, etc. for the transfer or exercise of rights (excluding land and buildings; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article), the value of such property shall be deemed to have been donated by the actual owner by the nominal owner on the date (where the property is subject to a change of ownership, referring to the date following the last day of the year following the year in which the date of acquisition of ownership falls) on which

1. Where any property is registered in another person's name without the purpose of tax avoidance, or transfer is not made in the name of the actual owner who acquired the ownership;

2. Of the stocks or equity shares (hereafter in this Article, referred to as “stocks, etc.”) which have been entered in the register of stockholders or the register of members under the name of another person or whose transfer has been made pursuant to a trust or agreement made prior to January 1, 1997, the same shall not apply to the case where the titles of the person having a special relationship with respect to the stocks, etc. which have been entered in the register of stockholders or the register of members by December 31, 1998 (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the “shareholders, etc.”)

(2) Where any property is registered, etc. under another person's name, and a transfer of ownership is not made under the name of the actual owner, and where the name of stocks, etc. is not converted under the name of the actual owner, it shall be presumed that there exists an object of tax avoidance: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases where the transferor files a report on the change of ownership along with a report under Articles 105 and 110 of the Income Tax

(3) In the application of the provisions of paragraph (1), where a register of stockholders or an employee has not been prepared, the decision of transfer shall be made in accordance with the documents concerning stockholders, etc. submitted to the head of tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment and the detailed statement on the state of changes in stocks, etc.

[Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu23028, Oct. 25, 2008]

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

Each disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff on November 7, 2005 on each of the tax items listed in the list (attached Form) shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. Each disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff on November 7, 2005 on the tax items listed in the list 1 through 7, and 10 shall be revoked.

If so, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and each appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant is without merit.

The judgment is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

No.

Items of Taxation

(C) Title Code)

Date of establishment of tax liability;

Amount of delinquent taxes;

Principal Tax

Agriculture Special Taxation

Total

1

Earned income tax

(0403-8-14)

January 31, 2002

4,521,840

4,521,840

2

Corporate Tax

(0405-5-31)

December 31, 2003

15,261,040

604,080

15,865,120

3

Corporate Tax

(0407-5-31)

December 31, 2003

15,256,580

602,820

15,859,400

4

Earned income tax

(0409-8-14)

May 31, 2004

402,200

402,200

5

Corporate Tax

(0410-7-31)

October 31, 2004

15,156,680

15,156,680

6

Earned income tax

(0410-8-14)

June 30, 2004

400,760

400,760

7

Earned income tax

(0403-8-14)

July 31, 2004

400,760

400,760

8

Value-added Tax

(0502-6-41)

June 30, 2004

2,436,450

2,436,450

9

Corporate Tax

(0412-7-31)

December 31, 2004

15,183,620

15,183,620

10

Corporate Tax

(0412-6-31)

December 31, 2004

161,199,560

161,199,560

guidance.

231,426,390