[부당이득금반환][집29(1)민,105;공1981.5.1.(655) 13796]
A. The meaning of 3 persons, one under Article 15(2) of the former National Tax Collection Act
(b) the validity of a corporate tax assessment disposition that the tax authority misleads a person who is not an oligopolistic stockholder as an oligopolistic stockholder;
A. The phrase “three persons, one of whom is stipulated in Article 15(2) of the former National Tax Collection Act” shall be deemed to be the number of shareholders or partners in a special relationship that constitutes oligopolistic shareholders, and it shall not be deemed that two or three other shareholders who are not specially related to those shareholders are combined with the group of shareholders or partners in a special relationship.
B. Although the tax authority’s disposition of imposing corporate tax which misleads a person who is not an oligopolistic stockholder as an oligopolistic stockholder is erroneous, it is only imposed on the grounds of revocation and is not void.
Article 15(2) of the former National Tax Collection Act (Law No. 1961, Nov. 29, 1967)
Supreme Court Decision 77Nu256 Decided March 28, 1978
Shinyang Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Korea
Daegu High Court Decision 80Na594 delivered on October 10, 1980
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.
According to the court below's legal reasoning, since the plaintiff's corporation is not a party with a special relationship with the plaintiff's 1,23,00 won by converting the total amount of capital into investment pursuant to Article 22 of the above Emergency Order on Economic Stabilization and Growth of the plaintiff's 1972.10,30,000 won, and the defendant's assistant director's corporate tax is not a party with a special relationship under Article 15 (2) of the former National Tax Collection Act with the Minister of Finance and Economy and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service's legal interpretation and order in imposing corporate tax, it is reasonable to interpret that the non-party 1, 2, and 3 were all of the oligopolistic shareholders and it is not a party with a special relationship with the above 7th shareholder's 9,00 won without deducting the above corporate tax from the amount of the above corporate tax under Article 62 of the above Emergency Order. Thus, it is not a party with a special relationship with the above 7th shareholder's 9,000 won.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Justice)