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

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant 20, 00,000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 200,000, 000,000, 000,000, 000,000, 000, 000, 200,000 retirement income tax for 2013, 00,000, 00,000, 00, 000, 000, 200, 00, 000, 000, 00, 000, 100, 100, 100, 100, 200, 100, 100, 100, 100, 200, 100, 100, 200, 200, 200, 203, 200.

A. △△△△△ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “△△△△△△△”) is a corporation that runs the business of consulting, development, supply, and repair of software, and the business of selling computers and peripheral devices. ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) is a corporation that is engaged in the business of developing and consulting system integration programs, and AAA (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) is the largest shareholder and the representative director of the Plaintiff company.

B. On March 30, 201, the Plaintiffs participated in the capital increase of △△△△△△△, and acquired each of the shares of 60,000 shares (the shares 00.00%) and 40,000 shares (the shares hereinafter referred to as “each of the above shares”) by the Plaintiff company.

C. On June 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiffs as an oligopolistic shareholder of △△△△△△ as the secondary taxpayer and designated the Plaintiffs as the secondary taxpayer for value-added tax for the second period of 2012, KRW 00,000,000, and KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 earned income tax for the second period of 2012, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”); (b) designated the Plaintiffs as the secondary taxpayer for value-added tax for the second period of 2012, 2013, and each earned income tax for the second year of 2014, and determined and notified retirement income tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, 10 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 39 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter “Act”) provides that “any of the following persons shall be subject to secondary tax liability.” subparagraph 2 provides that “A shareholder or one partner with limited liability and his/her related party, who is determined by Presidential Decree, and whose total amount of stocks held or investments exceeds 50/100 of the total number of outstanding stocks or investments of the pertinent corporation and who actually exercise his/her rights thereto (hereinafter “ oligopolistic shareholder”):

The facts of stock ownership are to be proved by the tax authority through the data such as the list of stockholders, the statement of stock transfer status or the register of corporate register, etc.: Provided, That even in cases where a single shareholder appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, where there are circumstances such that the actual shareholder was stolen or registered in the name other than the real shareholder registration, the actual shareholder cannot be deemed to be the shareholder, but the nominal owner claiming that he/she is not a shareholder should prove that he/she is not the shareholder. In addition, the exercise of the right to stocks does not necessarily require that the exercise of the right must be a result of the actual exercise of the shareholder's right, but is sufficient if he/she is in a position to exercise the shareholder's right (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du98

B. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 2, the fact that at the time of the occurrence of the instant default tax, the Plaintiff was indicated as the owner of the instant shares under the statement on the change of stocks, and the total amount of the shares owned by the Plaintiffs in a special relationship (00,000 shares) on the above material exceeds 0.00% of the total number of shares issued by △△△△△△ (00,000 shares) and 50% of the total number of shares issued by the Plaintiffs.

In addition, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs are the persons who actually exercise their rights because they are in a position to exercise shareholders' rights to the instant shares, and the testimony of Gap, Nos. 8, 9, and 11 and the best witness stand alone are insufficient.

① The Plaintiff Company’s 20 million won out of the total sales revenue of △△△△△△ is the sales revenue of the Plaintiff Company. The △△△△△△△△△ and the Plaintiffs are closely related to the Plaintiff Company and the Plaintiffs are closely related to the business.

② The Plaintiffs did not receive profit dividends from the △△△△△△△△, and did not attend the shareholders’ general meeting, but did not pay dividends due to the hostile management status of △△△△△△, and the shareholders’ general meeting was held in the form of without notifying the Plaintiffs.

③ The instant case is where △△△△△△ was unable to repay the Plaintiff Company’s debt owed to the Plaintiff Company.

Even if shares were to be provided for the purpose of collateral without receiving the payment of shares, the Plaintiff Company is likely to acquire the shares of this case with the intent to participate in the business operation of △△△ in order to recover the loans as a substitute payment for the loans, or with the intent to participate in the business operation of △△. Although the Plaintiffs did not directly exercise the right to the shares of this case, there was no ground to restrict the exercise of such right, and there

④ Even if the rehabilitation procedure for the Plaintiff Company is in progress, the status of the instant arrears cannot be deemed to have any impact on the Plaintiff Company.

C. Therefore, the plaintiffs should bear the secondary tax liability as an oligopolistic shareholder with respect to the overdue debts of △△△△△△, so the plaintiffs' assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety because they are without merit.