Even if the taxation disposition was unlawful, it does not constitute invalidation because the defect cannot be seen as apparent apparent, and thus, it does not constitute invalidation.

Intervenor joining the Defendant

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

① On July 25, 2005, the head of Dongdaemun-gu Tax Office imposed value-added tax, etc. on the Plaintiff on July 25, 2005; ② on August 3, 2007, the imposition disposition of KRW 50,690,540, additional dues of KRW 1,520,710, increased additional dues of KRW 608,280, which the head of Dongdaemun-gu Tax Office imposed on the Plaintiff on August 3, 2007; ③ the imposition disposition of KRW 5,040,60, additional dues of KRW 151,210, each imposed on the Plaintiff on August 3, 2007 by the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

A. (1) According to the corporate register of 00 companies (hereinafter referred to as “00”), the Plaintiff

The appointment of a director on October 18, 2002 and resigned on November 7, 2005, aa is registered to take office as the representative director on April 13, 2005 and resign on June 10, 2005, BB is deemed to take office as the representative director on June 10, 2005, and Cc is deemed to have been dismissed on October 13, 2005, and C is registered to take office as the representative director on August 4, 2004 and resign on April 13, 2005, and again to take office as the representative director on November 7, 2005.

(2) According to the statement of changes in stocks, etc. from December 31, 2003 to December 31, 2004, the Plaintiff is written as a shareholder holding 9,180 shares (67% out of total shares issued 18,00 shares).

section 1.

B. (1) (00) The director of the tax office does not pay the value-added tax as follows:

was made.

(2) Accordingly, on July 25, 2005, the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the plaintiff as the second taxpayer should consider the plaintiff as the second taxpayer.

The payment notice was given to the Plaintiff, including the tax and heavy penalty tax, as shown in the attached Table.

C. (1) On April 26, 2005, upon cancellation of a business licence, 00 only a limited partnership company (representative);

Won: (d) and e transfer to 122 vehicles owned in KRW 160,000,000;

On March 31, 2006, the defendantdo chief of the tax office filed a corporate tax return for the business year 2005 by omitting the sales of the tax office.

(2) The director of the tax office of the defendantdobong Tax office shall pay corporate tax for the business year of August 1, 2006 to 00 on August 1, 2006.

2,246,580 won was imposed, and the plaintiff was deemed to be the person to whom the income belongs and the income amount was disposed of in the amount of KRW 160,000.

(3) The director of the tax office of East capital +160 million won due to the disposition of capital +00 won (=160 million won due to the disposition of capital +

Benefits of 4,500,000 + Other incomes received from the Ministry of Strategy and Finance

24,193,380 won shall be calculated as income amount, and on August 3, 2007, the global income tax for the plaintiff on August 3, 2007

50,690,540 won was imposed and notified.

D. Meanwhile, on August 3, 2007, the head of Dongdaemun-gu Tax Office imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 5,040,60 of the resident tax in 2005 on the global income tax base in 2005 pursuant to Article 177-4(2) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8864 of Feb. 29, 2008) (the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is deemed to have imposed and notified pursuant to Article 177-4(5) of the Local Tax Act).

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, Eul's evidence 1 through 6, 13 through 18, Eul's evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim to nullify the invalidity of each disposition of additional dues and aggravated additional dues among the instant lawsuits

A. ex officio Domination, National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 8832 of Dec. 31, 2007)

(B) The additional dues and aggravated additional dues under Articles 21 and 22 are all kinds of incidental dues imposed in the meaning of interest on arrears if national taxes are not paid by the due date. If national taxes are not paid by the due date, the amount of additional dues and aggravated additional dues are naturally incurred under the provisions of Articles 21 and 22, and if national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date of payment by the due date without the due date of payment by the due date, it is possible to demand the payment by the due date. Thus, if the payment notice is unreasonable or procedural defects exist, it is possible to demand the payment by the due date. However, there is no additional dues and increased additional dues (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da15482, Jun. 10, 2005; 200Du31382, Feb. 13, 200).

B. In full view of the purport of the argument in each of the statements in the health class, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 9, Eul evidence No. 2-1 through 9, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the defendant's Dobong-si imposed additional dues and aggravated additional dues for the payment period of value-added tax as stated in the attached list at the time of the second taxpayer designation and notification. The defendant's tax office's notice to pay global income tax on August 3, 2007, "additional dues within one month after the due date for payment" in the notice to pay global income tax on August 3, 2005: 1,520,710, and increased additional dues by October 31, 207: 608,28,280, and resident tax notice on resident tax on September 30, 2005, stated "additional dues: 151,210 won after the due date for payment", and the defendants' notice to impose additional dues or increased additional dues after the due date for payment.

C. Therefore, among the lawsuit in this case, ① a claim to confirm the invalidity of each disposition of additional dues and aggravated additional dues against the head of the Dong-gu Tax Office, ② a claim to confirm the invalidity of each disposition of additional dues and increased additional dues against the head of Dongdaemun-gu Tax Office, ③ a claim to confirm the invalidity of the disposition of additional dues against the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “the other disposition of this case”).

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the collection procedure against the taxpayer 00

In addition, from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004, the Plaintiff obtained title trust with 00 shares 9,180 shares issued by fff as a shareholder in the register of shareholders, and thefff transferred 00 shares 18,00 shares to cC on August 2, 2004, the Plaintiff is not an oligopolistic shareholder of 00. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not the oligopolistic shareholder of 00, since there is a defect in the imposition disposition, such as the value-added tax, etc. by the above Defendant, designated as the secondary taxpayer, and thus, the invalidity thereof is sought.

(2) The head of Dongdaemun-gu Tax Office and the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government in 2005 global income tax

The disposition of imposition of resident tax and the Plaintiff is deemed the secondary taxpayer. The above Defendants did not first take the procedure of collecting 00 shares. The Plaintiff was merely the shareholder who was under title trust; the Plaintiff transferred ccc on August 2, 2004 the Plaintiff’s issued shares 9,180 shares to ccc on March 31, 2006; ccc was registered as the representative director on April 6, 2005, the date of the conclusion of the contract for the use of used cars and the transfer of vehicles; the Plaintiff was also treated as the agent of transfer contract; the Plaintiff’s trade union president of 00 used the purchase price directly; the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance was transferred on August 2, 2004 to ccc; and cc was submitted the statement of transfer and the statement of change of shares at the time of filing the corporate tax for the business year 205, which was due to the impossibility of cancelling the business license; and thus, the Plaintiff’s disposition of imposition and disposition of global income cannot be deemed unlawful.

(3) The Defendants did not take any measure against the Plaintiff until July 2014.

Considering the fact that the plaintiff sent the pre-announcement of the seizure of the plaintiff's benefits, the plaintiff did not own 00 shares and did not have the ability to pay the tax, and that the plaintiff's livelihood is significantly impeded due to the seizure, the disposition of this case is harsh beyond the tolerance limit, and thus, it is sought to confirm the invalidity thereof.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 39(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010)

The issue of whether a shareholder is an oligopolistic shareholder under subparagraph 2 shall be determined by whether the shareholder is a member of a majority shareholder group, and even if there is no fact involved in the management of the company, it cannot be determined that the shareholder is not an oligopolistic shareholder. The fact of ownership of the shares is proved by the data such as the register of shareholders, the statement of stock movement, or the register of corporate register, etc.: Provided, That even in cases where a shareholder appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, if there are circumstances, such as by which the tax authority stolen the name of the shareholder or registered in the name other than the name of the real shareholder, the actual shareholder cannot be deemed to fall under the shareholder, but it shall be proved by the nominal owner who asserts that he is not a shareholder (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615

On the other hand, in order to say that taxation is void as a matter of course, there is an illegal ground for such disposition.

The mere fact-finding alone is insufficient, and the defect must be objectively and objectively in violation of important Acts and subordinate statutes, and in determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, it is required to reasonably consider the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations on the basis of the pertinent taxation disposition as well as the characteristics of the specific case itself at the same time. A taxation disposition on a person who does not have any legal relations or factual relations subject to taxation, as long as there is no such legal relations or factual relations, shall be significant and obvious, but in case where objective circumstances exist that make it possible to believe that the legal relations or factual relations which are not subject to taxation are subject to taxation, if it is apparent that the factual relations are clearly examined, even if the defect is serious, it shall not be deemed that the illegal taxation disposition that misleads the fact of taxation, which is a basis for the pertinent taxation disposition, is null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2011, Feb. 23,

22723 see Supreme Court Decision 22723

(2) First, the director of the tax office’s claim to nullify the imposition of value-added tax, etc.

In order to establish the secondary tax liability, it is reasonable to view that the amount of shortage in collection has occurred when the main tax liability is not paid once the amount of shortage is not paid. However, as long as the main tax liability is not paid, the occurrence of shortage does not necessarily require the main taxpayer to execute the disposition on default in reality, and it is sufficient to acknowledge that a disposition on default would result in an objective shortage in collection (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu14756, Feb. 23, 1996). However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, 00 was insufficient to pay retirement allowances to employees who have cancelled a business license and transferred the vehicle, and 00 did not fulfill the tax liability up to the date. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was insufficient to collect the secondary tax liability. Accordingly, the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for establishing the secondary tax liability. In addition, even if 00 shareholders are not the shareholder as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff also stated that the Plaintiff was holding shares 9,180 shares in the detailed statement of stocks, etc., and thus, Defendant also did not have been designated the primary shareholder.

Therefore, the plaintiff satisfies the requirements for establishing the secondary tax liability, and the law that is subject to taxation.

As long as the tax authority did not accurately investigate the rate or facts and did not reveal the substance, it cannot be deemed that the defect is apparent in appearance, even if it was unlawful for the tax authority to impose tax on the Plaintiff, not the oligopolistic shareholder.

(3) The head of Dongdaemun-gu Tax Office and the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government General in 2005

With respect to the claim to nullify the imposition of income tax and resident tax, the head of Dongdaemun-gu Tax Office does not consider the plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer and did not take the above disposition, and the above disposition includes income amount (income and other income) other than the accepted bonus disposition. In addition, in full view of the purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 11 as a whole, the plaintiff is working for the manager and vice president in the Dobong Tax Office on September 23, 2005 as the plaintiff and has overall control over all responsibilities. The 00 is prohibited from issuing a tax invoice or receipt without the plaintiff's permission. The 00 is a used car and scrap disposal contract in the car page in the department store located at 00,000, April 6, 2005. At the same time, 200, 10,000 won was received from e, and 10,0000 won was additionally received from 10,000 won after 10,00000 won as the contract.

In fact, the Plaintiff entered into a transfer contract under which 00 used cars and scraping are collectively transferred;

The plaintiff alleged that "the contract deposit was used to repay 00's debts," but there is no supporting document, and it can be recognized that it was omitted at the time of reporting corporate tax without including it in the account book even after transferring used cars and scraping. Therefore, there was an objective circumstance that the plaintiff can be seen as 00 representative at the time of preparation of the transfer contract.

Therefore, the legal relations or facts subject to taxation are accurately examined, and the substance is rare.

As long as there were objective circumstances to mislead the Plaintiff, even if the taxation authority was illegal to impose the tax on the Plaintiff, not the actual owner, the defect cannot be deemed as apparent in appearance.

(4) The Defendants issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff in accordance with the pertinent laws and regulations.

The sole reason is that the principle of equality, the principle of excessive prohibition, the principle of legislative purpose, or the arbitrary exercise of the right to impose taxes or the deviation and abuse of discretionary power can not be deemed null and void.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the claims for nullification of each disposition of imposition of additional dues and aggravated additional dues against the head of the tax office of Dongdaemun-gu, the claims for nullification of each disposition of imposition of additional dues and increased additional dues against the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the claims for invalidity of the disposition of imposition of additional dues against the head of Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government are unlawful. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as they are

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

▣ 국세기본법(2010. 1. 1. 법률 제9911호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 39 (Secondary Liability to Pay Taxes by Investor)

(1) Where the property of a corporation (excluding a corporation whose stocks are listed on the securities market pursuant to Article 9 (13) 1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act) is insufficient to cover the national taxes, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears that the corporation has imposed on or is to pay, with the property of the corporation, any person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs as of the date on which the liability to pay national taxes is established shall assume the secondary liability to pay such shortage: Provided, That

In the case of an oligopolistic stockholder, the stocks with no voting rights or the amount of investment (excluding nonvoting stocks) by dividing the shortage by the total number of stocks issued (excluding nonvoting stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or the total amount of investment of the relevant corporation, which are owned by, or made by, the oligopolistic stockholder, the

The amount shall be limited to the amount computed by multiplying the number or amount of investment.

1. General partners;

2. An oligopolistic stockholder who falls under any of the following items:

(a) A person who exercises a substantial right over the stocks or investment shares in excess of 50/100 of the total issued stocks or total investments of the relevant corporation;

(b) An honorary chairperson, president, vice president, senior managing director, managing director, director, or any other person who actually controls the management of the corporation regardless of the name thereof;

(c) The spouse (including the person in de facto marital relations) of the persons under items (a) and (b) and the lineal ascendants and descendants sharing their living

(2) The term “ oligopolistic stockholder” in paragraph (1) 2 means a person who is a relative or has other special relations with a stockholder or partner with limited liability as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and whose total amount of stocks held or investments exceeds 50/100 of the total number of stocks issued or investments made by the juristic person concerned (hereinafter referred to as “ oligopolistic stockholder”).

▣ 지방세법(2008. 2. 29. 법률 제8864호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 177-4 (Return, Payment and Notification of Income Tax)

(1) When a person liable to pay income tax files a return, preliminary return or revised return on the income tax under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act, he/she shall file such return with the head of the competent tax office in the form prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, and the head of the competent Si/Gun (the head

payment shall be made to the Corporation.

(2) Where the head of a tax office collects the income tax (including the additional tax under Articles 81 and 115 of the Income Tax Act) according to the method of assessment and notice in accordance with the rectification, determination, etc. under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act, he/she shall impose and notify the income tax in a form prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, notwithstanding

(5) Where the head of a tax office receives a return on the pro rata income tax or imposes a notice or notice on imposition pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), he/she shall be deemed to receive a return

▣ 국세징수법(2007. 12. 31. 법률 제8832호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 21 (Additional Dues)

If the national taxes are not paid in full by the payment time limit, the additional dues equivalent to 3/100 of the national taxes in arrears shall be collected from the date on which the time limit for payment expires: Provided, That this shall not apply to the State and local governments

Article 22 (Additional Dues)

(1) If national taxes in arrears are not paid, a surcharge equivalent to 12/1,00 of the national taxes in arrears plus the surcharge as provided in Article 21 (hereinafter referred to as “increased surcharge”) shall be collected every time when one month elapses from the day on which the time limit for payment expires. In this case, the period for which the increased surcharge is additionally collected shall not exceed sixty months.

(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply where the delinquent national tax is less than five hundred thousand won.

(3) The proviso to Article 21 shall apply mutatis mutandis to paragraph (1).

(4) Where the collection of delinquent amount is deferred due to the progress of mutual agreement procedures with foreign competent authorities, the provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply, but the special cases concerning additional dues as referred to in Article 24 (5) of the Adjustment of International Taxes

▣ 법인세법 시행령(2006. 2. 9. 대통령령 제19328호로 개정되기 전의 것)

§ 106. Disposal of income

(1) The amount included in the calculation of earnings under the provisions of Article 67 of the Act shall be disposed of under the provisions of the following subparagraphs. The same shall apply to non-profit domestic corporations

1. Where the amount included in the calculation of earnings has clearly leaked out of the company, the dividends, bonuses from the disposition of profits, other income, and other outflow from the company under each of the following items according to the person to whom they accrue: Provided, That where the accrual is unclear, it shall be deemed as accrual to the representative (where the total number of stocks held by an officer who is not a minority shareholder under the provisions of Article 87 (2) and persons with a special relationship under the provisions of paragraph (4) of the same Article is 30% or more of the total number of stocks issued or total investment amount of the concerned corporation and the officer actually controls the operation of the corporation, he shall be deemed the representative, and where a corporation which has been exempted from withholding taxes under the provisions of Article 46 (12) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act reports that there is a separate representative among the officers who are stockholders, the reported person shall be the representative,

(a) Where the person of accrual is a stockholder (not including stockholders who are officers or employees), the dividends of the person of accrual;

(b) If the person to whom it belongs is an officer or employee, the bonus to the person to whom it reverts;

(c) Where the person to whom it belongs is a corporation or an individual operating the business, other outflow from the company: Provided, That it shall be limited to where the distributed profit constitutes the income for each business year of a domestic corporation or a domestic business place of a foreign corporation under the provisions of Article 94 of the Act or the business income of a resident or a non-resident under

(d) Other income of the person to whom it reverts, in case where the person to whom it reverts is the person.

Finally.