회사의 경영에 참여하지 않아도 과점주주에 해당함[국승]
corporation's management without participating in the corporation's management;
Whether it is an oligopolistic stockholder shall be determined by whether it is a member of a group of stocks owned by the majority, and even if there is no fact involved in the management of the company, it cannot be determined that it is not an oligopolistic stockholder, and the fact of ownership of stocks should be proved by the tax authority in accordance with the data such as the register of stockholders, statement of stock transfer
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 47,601,710 against the Plaintiff on March 16, 2009 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 8-1 through 8, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2, and three:
A. AAAAA Motor Vehicle Sales Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as a "non-party company") is a stock company established on January 11, 1996 for the purpose of the automobile sales business, etc., and the total number of outstanding shares is 50,000,000,000, and the total amount of capital is '50,000,000,000,000, and the composition of the non-party company is as follows from 2002 to 209. However, the non-party company did not pay 8,93,337,000,000,000,000,000, including the first, value-added tax in 2007, and as of the date of its principal liability for tax payment, the defendant determined that the non-party company as its principal taxpayer is not capable of paying the above delinquent tax with its own property. As of the date of its principal liability for tax payment, on March 16, 2009>
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
At the time of incorporation of the non-party company, the plaintiff lent only 150 shares of 7 promoters upon the request of DoD, and the non-party company's shareholder and director of the non-party company set out on August 14, 2002. Accordingly, the non-party company's 2,50 shares of 2,500 shares of CC and 150 shares of YE (CCC's wife) of 2,50 shares of 2,50 shares of YF (EB), 150 shares of 2,50 shares of 2,50 shares of CC and OF (EB's wife), which are 2,400 shares of 2,50 shares of Y (EB), a representative director of the non-party company, to use the plaintiff's name by changing the company's name to the name of 150 shares of the non-party company, and the plaintiff was not actually aware of the above circumstances and did not participate in the management of the non-party company.
(b) Related statutes;
It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.
C. Determination
1) Article 39(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "a person who is a relative or has other special relations with a stockholder or partner with limited liability and whose total amount of stocks 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 in question."
In this case, the issue of whether it is an oligopolistic shareholder shall be determined on the basis of whether it is a member of a group owned by a majority of stocks. Specifically, even if there is no fact involved in the management of the company, it cannot be determined that it is not an oligopolistic shareholder. The fact of ownership of stocks is proved by the tax authority through the data such as the register of shareholders, the statement of stock movement or the register of corporate register
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.