과점주주에 대한 제2차 납세의무자지정 처분의 당부[국승]
Appropriateness of the secondary disposition of designating the person liable for tax payment to oligopolistic shareholders
The father prepared a power of attorney to delegate his authority to the overall business of the company, but if only the nominal shareholder is a nominal shareholder, it is not necessary to prepare a power of attorney, and thus the assertion that he is a nominal shareholder is not persuasive.
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 revoked the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 30,081,070 for the second period of 2004 against the plaintiff on December 18, 2008 and value-added tax of KRW 1,358,020 for the first period of 205 against the plaintiff on December 18, 200 (to be explicitly stated in the complaint)
The second taxpayer is seeking the revocation of the notification of the designation of the taxpayer, but it is prior as above).
1. Details of the disposition;
(a) Default in value-added tax and oligopolistic stockholders of a stock company;
(1) The △ Environment Development Co., Ltd. (the △△ Environment Development Co., Ltd., its trade name was changed as of January 19, 2004; hereinafter referred to as the “Nonindicted Company”) failed to pay the value-added tax for the second period of 2004 KRW 58,982,610, and value-added tax for the first period of 2005 KRW 2,662,860 for the second period of 204.
(2) On January 19, 2004, the Plaintiff was appointed as the representative director of the non-party company, and at the same time submitted the acquisition of 5,100 shares of the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as “the shares of this case”) upon filing a corrective report on the same day, along with the details of the acquisition of shares.
(b) Designation of secondary taxpayers and notification of imposition of value-added tax;
On December 18, 2008, the defendant decided that the plaintiff owned the shares of this case as oligopolistic shareholders, notified the plaintiff of the designation of the second taxpayer, and notified the non-party company that the non-party company should pay KRW 1,358,020 out of the value-added tax for the second term portion of the value-added tax for the second term portion of 2004 in 2004 (the first term portion of the value-added tax for the second term portion of 2004 was notified that the non-party company should pay to the plaintiff the value-added tax and the corporate tax in arrears established after May 23, 2005, but then revoked ex officio during the
[Reasons for Recognition] 2. Claims and determination of Gap evidence, Eul evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including a natural disaster)
A. The plaintiff's assertion
Although the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant shares, the actual owner of the instant shares is a father of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is only a nominal shareholder. Therefore, it is unlawful to designate the Plaintiff, who is merely a nominal shareholder, as the secondary taxpayer.
(b) Related statutes;
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
Article 39(1)2 (a) of the Act provides that "a person who actually exercises rights over 51/100 or more of the total number of stocks issued by the relevant corporation" is an oligopolistic shareholder with secondary tax liability. The exercise of rights over 51/100 or more of the stocks does not necessarily require that the actual exercise of shareholders' rights is required, and it is sufficient that the person is in a position to exercise shareholders' rights over the stocks held as of the date of establishment of tax liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du8418, Oct. 15, 2004; 2001Du5354, Jul. 8, 2003). However, even if the tax office appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, it shall be sufficient that the actual shareholder was stolen, or registered as a de facto shareholder, but it shall not be deemed that it constitutes 150 or more shareholders (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7540, Jul.
With respect to this case, it seems that the following circumstances are revealed that the plaintiff was merely a shareholder in the name of the non-party company: Gap 6, 10 evidence; Eul 1,200,000 won; Eul 3,00 won was paid from the non-party company; and Eul 3,00 won was considered to have been taken over the non-party company as a result of the joint and several debt guarantee of the non-party company and seizure of its property; however, the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party company was 28 years old at the time of this case's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's Professor's Professor's son.
In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that only the items of evidence Nos. 3 through 5, A7 through 9, and 11 are merely the Plaintiff’s nominal shareholders, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.