A. Of the instant lawsuit, the part regarding additional dues and increased additional dues of KRW 000 shall be dismissed.

B. On December 28, 2011, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer by law firm ○○ as the secondary taxpayer; and (b) revoked the notice of payment regarding KRW 000 of the corporate tax attributed to 2010.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

On December 28, 2011, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of the law firm ○○○ on December 28, 201; and (b) revoked the notice of payment regarding KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the year 2010 on the Plaintiff.

(The plaintiff changed the purport of the claim in the trial as above.

The following facts are acknowledged as a whole by taking account of each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 and Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers) without dispute between the parties, or by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings.

[1]

"○○ Law Firm OO (hereinafter "OO") was established on March 13, 2009, paid 00 won to the plaintiff et al. registered as members on the corporate register, and appropriated it as losses, and reported corporate tax." The defendant denied the amount of benefits paid by the non-party corporation to the plaintiff et al. as above and denied the amount of losses, and disposed of as dividends to each member on November 10, 201, and notified the non-party corporation of KRW 000 of corporate tax for the year 2010.

[2]

In December 28, 2011, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer on December 28, 201; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the payment of KRW 000 and additional 000,000, total amount of corporate tax for the year 2010.

○ The Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal for a trial, but was dismissed on May 31, 2012, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 3, 2012.

○ On September 2013, which was after the first instance judgment was rendered, the Defendant revised the total amount of KRW 000,000, including the above corporate tax and additional dues, and KRW 000,000, total amount of corporate tax and additional dues and increased additional dues.

2. Additional dues and aggravated additional dues;

If a national tax is not paid by the due date, an additional dues or increased additional dues provided for in Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act are naturally generated pursuant to the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, and the amount thereof is determined. If the initial amount of tax imposed is revoked or reduced, the additional dues are automatically cancelled or reduced, so the notice of additional dues or increased additional dues cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu76, Sept. 9, 1986; 2000Du2013, Sept. 22, 2000; 2005Da15482, Jun. 10, 2005).

The defendant designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer for the corporate tax of the non-party corporation and notified the plaintiff of the payment of the corporate tax of KRW 000 and the additional tax of KRW 000 and sought revocation of the corporate tax of KRW 000 and the additional tax.

Therefore, among the lawsuits of this case, the surcharge and increased surcharge of 000 won are unlawful as they seek revocation of a disposition not falling under the disposition subject to appeal litigation.

3. Corporate tax; and

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was registered as a member of the non-party corporation in its form, but actually was merely a sub-lessee who transferred a part of the building from the non-party corporation, and was not in a position to participate in the operation of the non-party corporation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s second taxpayer designated the non-party corporation as the non-party corporation and notified the Plaintiff of the payment of KRW 000

C. Determination

(1) Article 58(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that the provisions of the Commercial Act concerning unlimited partnerships shall apply mutatis mutandis to law firms, except as otherwise provided in this Act, and Article 212(1) of the Commercial Act provides that when it is impossible to fully pay the company's obligations with the assets of an unlimited partnership company, each member shall be jointly and severally liable.

Under the Commercial Act, the general partner system is a system that imposes a comprehensive liability on a general partner for a company's obligations, and is derived from the characteristics of a personal company. The purpose of the system is to supplement general partners' liabilities according to equity shares, regardless of equity shares, rather than limited liability, and to protect creditors of a company by securing secondary liability. In other words, due to the special characteristics of a personal company, it is intended to enhance liquidity and promptness in commercial transactions, to make the total assets and efforts of all members a basis for the company's credit, thereby facilitating the financing of business funds, and to raise the awareness of the company's liabilities, thereby protecting the creditors of a company.

Therefore, Article 212 of the Commercial Act is a mandatory provision to protect company creditors, and it cannot be excluded from the provisions of the articles of incorporation or the consent of all the members. Thus, it is merely an internal circumstance of a corporation that the general partner did not actually participate in the operation of the corporation and thus, it cannot be asserted

(2) Article 39(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same) provides that, where the property of a corporation is insufficient to cover the national taxes, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears that the corporation imposed or pays, a person who falls under the general partner with unlimited liability as of the date on which the national tax liability is established shall be subject to secondary tax liability for such shortage.

The purpose of these provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to ensure tax equality and to secure tax collection by imposing secondary tax liability on general partners in supplement, reflecting the purpose and specificity of the general partner system as seen earlier.

However, in cases where a tax amount to be collected even if a disposition on default is taken on the property of the original taxpayer in order to secure tax collection is deemed to fall short of the amount of taxes to be collected, the secondary tax liability is a system to have a third party in a special relationship with the original taxpayer bear a supplementary tax liability within the scope of the amount not collectible from the original taxpayer. In general, even in cases where a third party is formally attributed to a third party, the secondary tax liability is intended to avoid the nominal attribution of the property, such as where the property is deemed to belong to the original taxpayer, and thus, where the property is not fair even if it is deemed to belong to the original taxpayer, thereby hindering judicial order by avoiding the title of the property, thereby having the latter assume a supplementary tax liability to the person in a formal right (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu192, Dec. 14, 1982).

Therefore, in order to impose secondary tax liability on a general partner of a corporation pursuant to Article 39(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is essential that the liability to pay delinquent national taxes is in a position to substantially participate in the operation of the corporation as a general partner as of the date on which the liability to pay delinquent national taxes is established. Only on the ground that the matters to be registered as a general partner on the registry of the corporation are recorded in the form of a corporate, no liability to pay delinquent taxes may be imposed as a general partner. Article 37 of the Commercial Act provides that "if the matters to be registered are not registered, a third party shall not oppose a third party in good faith" refers to the other party in the ordinary transaction relationship on an equal footing, and the State in cases of imposing taxes based on the tax authority shall not be deemed as a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

On the other hand, whether a corporation is a general partner of the corporation under Article 39(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes should be proved by data, such as the certified transcript of corporate register, etc., and even in cases where the data are seen as a general partner, the circumstance that the tax authority did not actually involve in the operation of the corporation as a general partner should be proved by the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615, Jul. 9, 20

(3) According to the evidence No. 4 as to the instant case, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was appointed as a member on August 23, 2010 and resigned on February 7, 2011 in the corporate register of the non-party corporation.

However, in full view of the written evidence evidence Nos. 4 through 11, the Plaintiff, along with the attorney △△△△△, concluded a sub-lease contract with the non-party corporation on July 29, 2010, which provides two attorneys-at-law offices, the employees’ office space as the whole subject matter, and the monthly rent of KRW 0 million with the non-party corporation. The non-party corporation used part of the fourth floor of the leased building and operated the attorney-at-law business separately from the non-party corporation, and the Plaintiff was registered as a member in the register of the non-party corporation upon the request of the non-party corporation to lend the name to meet the number of its members.

According to the above facts, even if the plaintiff was registered as a member in the corporate register of the non-party corporation, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff was actually in a position to participate in the operation of the non-party corporation as a general partner, and thus, it cannot be designated as a secondary taxpayer

Therefore, the disposition that the plaintiff designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer of the non-party corporation and notified the non-party corporation's corporate tax of KRW 000 is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the surcharge and increased surcharge 000 won in the lawsuit of this case concerning the claim that the plaintiff changed in the trial at the trial, shall be dismissed as unlawful, and the remaining claims shall be accepted as reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as above in accordance with the claim change in the trial at the trial and it is so decided as per Disposition.