(심리불속행) 원고를 차명주주로 봄이 상당하므로，원고가 과점주주임을 전제로 한 이 사건 처분은 위법함[국패]
Seoul High Court 2013Nu10931 ( October 25, 2013)
(C) The disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder is an oligopolistic shareholder is unlawful, since it is reasonable to see the plaintiff as a second-class shareholder.
(Main) The Plaintiff’s physical guarantee appears to be an act to assist the Gero-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-morro-mor
Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes: Secondary tax liability of investors under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
2013Du23829 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax
KimA
Head of Guro Tax Office
Seoul High Court 2013Nu10931 ( October 25, 2013)
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The judgment of the court below and the appellate brief all of the records of this case, but the appellant's ground of appeal is not included in the grounds provided by each subparagraph of Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal or it is recognized that there is no reason. Thus, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by