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

“CC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC”) is a non-permanent corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing, wholesale, retail, etc. electronic equipment, which is 1000 won in total, and 000 won in total, with the aim of manufacturing electronic equipment, wholesale, retail, etc. B. The Defendant deducts the purchase tax amount on the ground that the non-party company was entitled to input tax deduction using a processing tax invoice in 2004 with respect to the return and payment of corporate tax in 2004 and 2004, while setting the processing purchase amount as the non-party company’s payment period on January 3, 201, and on January 3, 201, the non-party company imposed and notified the non-party company of the imposition of KRW 000 in total value-added tax for the second half-year of 200 and corporate tax for the business year of 204 with no special property in arrears.

C. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2004, the date when the above tax liability of the non-party company was established, the defendant is an oligopolistic shareholder who owns 75% (49%) of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company (49% and 26% of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company, and the deceased is in a special relationship with the deceased B (201.7, 2012, hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") and Park DoD as stipulated in Article 20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18849, May 31, 2005), and on the ground that the deceased is a person who actually exercises the right to 49% of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company, and the deceased is a person who is liable to pay the value-added tax on the non-party company's total amount of shares issued by the non-party company.

D. On June 21, 201, the Deceased, dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for a trial to the National Tax Tribunal on June 21, 201, and the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the said request for a trial on August 19, 201.

E. Meanwhile, the Deceased died on January 7, 2012, and the Plaintiffs are the inheritors of the Deceased.

[Based on recognition] The evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (if there are natural disasters, including the number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the incorporation of the non-party company, the deceased registered the name of the representative director and the shareholder of the non-party company as the shareholder holding 49% of the non-party company's shares in the form of lending the name of the non-party company's representative director and the non-party company's shareholder list, and the deceased did not actually exercise the right to the above shares or take part in the management of the non-party company. In addition, the non-party company's transfer of the rights to the non-party company's shares and the management of the non-party company to thisJ around February 2004, and the court of Justice entered himself as the representative director on the corporate register and registered as the shareholder in the shareholder registry. Accordingly, the disposition of this case on the premise different from that of the non-party company's oligopolistic shareholder is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

(c) recognized private theory;

1) On November 6, 2002, the date of the incorporation of the non-party company, the registration of the deceased's director and the office of the representative director, and the registration of the office of the director of Park K, which is the dynamics of Park K, Park Jong-K, the birth of the deceased, and the registration of the office of the director and the office of the representative director of the deceased on July 25, 2003, and on January 8, 2004, the registration of the office of the director and the office of the representative director of Park K was completed, respectively, and on January 21, 2005, the registration of the resignation of the deceased and the registration of the office of the director and the office of the representative director of Park K, and on the same day, the registration of the office and the office of the director of Lee J, the registration of the office of the representative director of MJ, and the registration of the office of the NN on the appointment of the representative director of M.

2) The details of shares held by each shareholder on the detailed statement of changes, such as each share at the end of 2002-2004, submitted by the non-party company to the Defendant are as follows (no share change was made until the business year 2002-204).

3) On the other hand, the deceased’s father, and ParkD are his wife, and Park K are his wife.

4) On February 28, 2005, the Deceased reported the transfer income tax to the Director of the Geumcheon Tax Office to the effect that he transferred 4900 shares of the non-party company to J and Kim N, and that the Deceased transferred 400 shares of the non-party company to the non-party company to 00 won per share on January 20, 2005 and 900 shares per share.

5) 이JJ은 2012. 3. 27. 이 법원 제1차 변론기일에 증인으로 출석하여 소외 회사는 유EE이 운영하던 회사인데，정QQ이유EE으로부터 소외 회사의 주식 및 경영권을 인수하였는데，인수 당시 유EE과 정QQ이 같이 소외 회사에서 일을 하다가 소외 회사의 상호를 주식회사 PPP에서 현재의 CCCCCC로 변경 하면서 정QQ이 독자적으로 소외 회사를 운영하였고 자신은 정QQ의 부탁으로 대표 이사로 등재되었을 뿐 정QQ이 소외 회사를 사실상 경영하였으나，유창석이 정QQ에 게 언제 소외 회사를 넘겨주기로 했는지는 자세히 모른다 증인이 소외 회사에서 근무하기 시작한 1-2개월 후에 증인이 소외 회사의 대표이사로 등재되고，상호도 변경되었다'고 증언하였다.

[Based on Recognition] The descriptions of Gap and Eul evidence 1, 6, and 3, and 4, and the testimony and the whole purport of the testimony of the JJ, and the whole arguments

D. Determination

1) According to Article 39(1)2(a) of the Act, a person who actually exercises the rights over 51/100 or more of the total number of stocks issued by the relevant corporation among oligopolistic shareholders shall be subject to secondary tax liability. The determination of whether a person constitutes a process shareholder under the above provisions shall be made based on whether the relevant tax office is a member of a group of stocks owned by the majority, and the facts of stock ownership shall be proved by the data such as the register of shareholders, the statement of stock transfer or the register of corporate register, etc., and, however, even if it appears to be a single shareholder in the light of the above data, if there are circumstances, such as where the name of the stockholder was stolen or registered under a name other than the name of the actual owner, it shall not be deemed to be a shareholder, but this shall be proved by the nominal owner who asserts that he is not a shareholder (Article 208Du983, Sept. 11, 2008)

2) 먼저 망언이 소외 회사의 명의상의 주주에 불과한지에 대하여 보건대，앞서 인정한 사실관계에 앞서 든 증거들 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들，즉 ① 망인은 소외 회사의 법인등기부상 그 설립 당시인 2002.11.6.부터 2003. 7.25.까지는 대표이사로，2002.11.6.부터 2005.1.21.까지는 이사로 각 등재되어 있었지만，그 기간 동안 실제 출근하여 근무하지는 않은 것으로 보이고{소외 회사의 근로소득원천징수영수증(을 제5호증)에는 망인이 소외 회사로부터 2004 사업연도에 합계 약 000원의 급여를 받은 것으로 기재되어 있으나，이는 위 근로소득원천정수 영수증상 작성일자(2005.12.31.)， 성자(박KK) 등의 기재에 비추어 볼 때 망인이 실제 출근하여 근무하지 않았음에도 소외 회사가 법인세 등을 절감하기 위하여 사후적으로 위와 같은 서류를 만든 것으로 보인다}，박KK 또한 소외 회사의 법인등기부상 2002. 11. 6.부터 2005. 1. 21.까지는 이사로， 2004. 1. 8.부터 2005. 1. 21 까지는 대표 이사로 각 등재되어 있었지만， 그 기간 동안 실제 출근하여 근무하지는 않은 것으로 보이는 점，② 망인의 아들인 유EE은 자신의 명의로는 소외 회사의 주식을 전혀 소유한 바가 없고 임원으로도 등재된 바가 없지만，자신의 친인척들(아버지인 망인， 처인 박DD， 처남인 박KK)을 형식상 소외 회사의 임원으로 등재한 후 소외 회사를 실질적으로 경영하면서，소외 회사 주식 및 경영권의 양도를 주도한 점，③ 망인이 주주로서 의결권을 행사하거나 배당을 받는 등 주주로서의 권리를 행사하였다는 등의 사정을 전혀 엿볼 수 없는 점 및 유EE과 주주명부상 주주로 기재된 자(망인，박DD，박KK) 들의 관계 등을 종합하여 보면， 유EE이 망인 등의 명의를 차용하여 소외 회사의 주식을 실질적으로 소유하면서 소외 회사를 사실상 지배하여 온 것으로 보이므로， 망인 명의의 소외 회사 주식의 실제 소유자는 유EE이라 할 것이고，반면 망인은 명의만 대여한 형식상의 주주에 불과하다고 할 것이다. 따라서 망인이 법 제39조 제2항 (가)목 에서 정한 과점주주에 해당함을 전제로 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다(나아가 원고들은 2004. 12. 31을 기준으로 망인 명의의 소외 회사 주식의 설제 소유자는 이JJ이라고 주장하나， 앞서 본 바와 같이 망인과 이JJ ・ 김NN 사이에 작성된 주식양도 ・ 양수 계약서에는 이JJ • 김NN가 2005. 1. 20. 양도대금을 일시불로 지급하고 소외 회사 주식을 양수하기로 한다고 기재되어 있는 점，그 다음 날인 2005. 1. 21. 망인 ・ 박XX ・ 박KK의 임원 사임등기와 소외 회사 주식 양수인인 이JJ ・ 김NN 등의 임원 취 임등기가 이루어졌고， 소외 회사의 상호도 변경된 점，이JJ 또한 형식상 소외 회사의 대표이사로 등재된 것이고 정QQ이 소외 회사를 실제 양수한 것으로 보이는데，이YY은 정QQ이 언제，어떠한 방법으로 유EE으로부터 소외 회사주식 및 경영권을 양수하였는지는 자세히 모른다는 것인 점 등에 비추어 보면，갑 제2 4 7호증의 각 기재，증인 이JJ의 증언만으로는 원고들의 위 주장사실을 인정하기에 부족하고，달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다).

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are justified and accepted.