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

A. POO stores Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) were established around November 4, 2005 with capital of KRW 100 million and total number of issued and outstanding shares 20,000 for the purpose of restaurant business, etc. Around November 4, 2005. The data submitted by the instant company upon filing corporate tax returns to the tax authorities in 2005 stated that the Plaintiff, who was registered as a director on the corporate register, owns all the above shares 20,000 shares.

B. From 2006 to 2008, the instant company did not submit a detailed statement on the change of stocks, etc. to the tax authority at the time of reporting corporate tax for each business year from 2006 to 2008. However, according to the inquiry into the shareholders status of each corporation based on December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2008, it was confirmed that there was no change in the ownership status of stocks of the instant company.

C. The instant company did not impose value-added tax on the instant company from February 2, 2006 to February 2, 2008 while running restaurant business at the location of its head office located in the 11st PPD 301 within the so-called So-called So-do Eup’s Housing Site Development District. The Defendant imposed value-added tax on the instant company for each of the aforementioned taxable periods.

D. However, as the instant company did not pay the above value-added tax, the Defendant, on September 30, 2009, designated the Plaintiff, who owned 100% of the shares of the instant company, as the secondary taxpayer of the said value-added tax, and notified the Plaintiff of the payment for the total amount of 00 won of the value-added tax (including additional charges) for each taxable period.

E. On December 2, 2009, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed an objection with the Tax Tribunal on December 2, 2009. As of June 11, 2010, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to revoke KRW 000 of the aggregate amount of each value-added tax equivalent to the value-added tax amount for the first and second years of 2008.

F. Accordingly, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant partly revoked the above 000 won in the initial imposition of the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on the Plaintiff was ① KRW 000 for the second period of 2006, ② KRW 000 for the first period of 2007, ③ KRW 000 for the second period of 2007, and ③ only KRW 000 for the second period of 2007 (including additional dues) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, 8, Eul evidence 1 through 3 (the omission of provisional number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The company of this case was established to operate the restaurant of this case as 301 because KimA, the representative director of the corporation of the corporation of OO Ri (hereinafter referred to as "OO Ri", hereinafter referred to as "the commercial building of this case") newly constructed and sold OO Ri, and the sale of the above xfra (hereinafter referred to as "the commercial building of this case"), the company of this case was established to operate the restaurant of this case. The plaintiff provided only the name of the shareholder of the company of this case at the request of KimA, and was registered in the name of the representative who did not receive monthly pay from the company of this case and delivered all documents necessary for the transfer of all the shares of the company of this case and its representative status to KimB on February 206, 206, while KimA continued to operate the company of this case without transferring its shareholder's name, etc., the company of this case was unlawful in the disposition of this case based on other premise.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry is as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

In light of the legislative purport, amendment, etc. of Article 39 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “the Act”), the meaning of Article 39(1)2(a) of the Act is that all the persons who are oligopolistic shareholders who actually exercise rights over shares exceeding 50/10 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares among oligopolistic shareholders shall bear secondary tax liability: Provided, That the scope of liability is limited within the scope of one’s own shares. It does not require one of oligopolistic shareholders to actually exercise rights over shares exceeding 50/100 as stated in subparagraph (a) of the same Article. It does not require that the exercise of rights over shares must have actual exercise of shareholders’ rights, but it is sufficient that a shareholder is in a position to exercise shareholders’ rights over shares held as of the date of establishment of tax liability, such as a 20-day shareholder registry, but can only be deemed as a 90-day shareholder registry, etc. in light of the aforementioned data.

(2) Determination

(A) According to the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the evidence No. 3 as well as the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s entire shares of the instant company from November 4, 2005, which was the date of the establishment of the instant company, to November 4, 2005, to the time of the instant disposition, can be acknowledged as being registered as its shareholders. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be an oligopolistic shareholder of the instant company unless it proves that the Plaintiff was either stolen the name of the shareholder of the instant company or was registered as the name

(B) However, (1) the Plaintiff’s husband’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s 20th anniversary of the fact that the Plaintiff had no record of the transfer of the Plaintiff’s shares to the 1st day before the 5th day of the establishment of the 1st day of the 5th day of the 1st day of the 20th day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 20th day of the 1st day of the 20th day of the 1st day of the 20th day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 20th day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 20th day of the 1st day of the 20th day of the 1st day of the 20th day of the 3rd day of the 2nd day of the 20th day of the 2nd day of the 20th day of the 3rd day of the 2 day of the 3rd day of the day.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff falls under an oligopolistic stockholder under Article 39 (1) 2 of the Act is legitimate. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the ground that the disposition of this case is unlawful is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.