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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendants jointly pay to the plaintiff 18,69,256 the amount of money calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint to the day of complete payment.

A. The status and relationship of the parties

Defendant AAAAA (hereinafter referred to as “AAAB”), Defendant BB (hereinafter referred to as “BB”) is a corporation established for the purpose of steel, steel, steel, manufacturing, and marketing, and the DefendantCC (hereinafter referred to as “CC”) is a corporation established for the purpose of construction and engineering work, etc. The Defendant EE (hereinafter referred to as “EE”); when all the Defendants are the Defendants, they are corporations established for the purpose of real estate sales, transportation, etc. ADD (hereinafter referred to as “DDD”) is a corporation established for the purpose of real estate sales, transportation, etc. ADD (hereinafter referred to as “DDD”) is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling steel, steel, and dissolution on December 2, 2014. FF is a person who served as a representative director of DDD and resigned on March 25, 2008.

B. The Plaintiff’s taxation claim against FF

1) FF in collusion with GG on December 24, 2008, transferred 28 billion won from around December 26, 2008 to around December 26, 2008 under the name of shareholders' dividend, and withdrawn 10,339,150,240 won from around December 26, 2008 to January 8, 2009 under the name of the representative director's checks, and embezzled 38,339,150,240 won for corporate funds of DD due to the use of FF for personal purposes. The above facts charged were all convicted, and the appellate court's judgment (J High Court Decision 2000No320 decided July 5, 2012, which sentenced FF to suspension of the execution of 3 years imprisonment with labor for the FF, and 38,320 hours community service order for the FF.

2) On May 13, 2015, the head of the HHH tax office under the Plaintiff’s HHH tax office deemed the embezzlement of the above paragraph (1) as bonus income from the FF of the DD’s FF, and imposed a disposition on FF on ① global income tax of 1,647,919, and a disposition on imposition by the CF for the tax year of 2009. ② A disposition on imposition of global income tax of 15,710,477 as of March 2, 2008, and a disposition on imposition of the CF’s global income tax of 200,000,000 won for FF’s GG (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”). Meanwhile, on September 1, 2013, the head of the KK tax office imposed a gift tax of 141,750, and a disposition on imposition of a gift tax of 10,750,000 won on FF.

C. Operation of the Defendant Company

1) The date of establishment, officers and shareholders of the Defendant Company, and the composition thereof are as listed below.

(2) For the purpose of inserting the votes, a margin

2) LLL는 FFF의 아내이고, OOO, PPP는 FFF의 딸이고, QQQ, RRR은 FFF의 조카이다. SSS, TTT, UUU, VVV은 DDDD의 직원이다.

(d) Transfer of FF property;

(i) embezzlement and use of funds of DD;

A) On December 24, 2008, GG assumed office as the representative director of DD on December 24, 2008, according to FF’s direction, and thereafter, during the period from December 24, 2008 to December 26, 2008, GG transferred total of KRW 28 billion to the accounts of WW, LL, YY, ZZ, GG and FF.

B) The FF withdrawn a total of 10,339,150 from the accounts of DD on December 26, 2008, and deposited it by distributed to the borrowed account of TT, etc.

C) The FF intended to use part of the embezzled money as above to purchase JK-dong LLW 95 XX (hereinafter “instant land”).

2) Loans and reimbursement to AB by Defendant AAA,CC, and BB

A) Some of the embezzled money that FF embezzled as referred to in the above paragraph 1 is leased to Defendant AAA, BBB, andCC as a shareholder short-term loan, and if the said company re-loans to AB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AB”) prior to the change of the company’s trade name on December 3, 2014, the said company would have reached “AB” prior to the change of the company’s trade name, then AB would use it as a purchase fund of the instant land.

B) Accordingly, Defendant AAA remitted the total of KRW 3.5 billion on October 21, 2010, and KRW 6.5 billion on October 22, 2010, and KRW 2.5 billion on October 22, 2010. ② Defendant BB transferred KRW 2.5 billion on October 21, 2010, KRW 2.5 billion on October 22, 2010, KRW 6.3 billion on October 28, 2010, and KRW 3.4 billion on October 28, 2010. ③ DefendantCC remitted the total of KRW 6.5 billion on October 21, 2010, and KRW 6.5 billion on October 22, 2010.

C) On December 2, 2010, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of AB on the same day on the grounds of sale and purchase (transaction value 20, commercial class, commercial class, commercial class, commercial class, and commercial class) on the instant land.

라) ① 피고 AAAAA의 계좌(CD은행 724-XX-000XXX)에 2013. 1. 31.부터 2013. 3. 12.까지 합계 60억 원이 AB 또는 AB대표 명의로 입금되었다. ② 피고 BBBB의 계좌(EF은행 103-059XXX-04-XXX)에 2010. 12. 6. 입급자 불명의 63억 원이 입금되었다. ③ 피고 CCCC의 CD은행 계좌(699-XX-XXXXXX) 2010. 12. 7. 입금자 불명의 50억 원이 입금되었고, 2013. 1. 30. AB대표 명의로 15억 원이 입금되었다.

3) On March 31, 2012, the shareholder status of AB on March 31, 2012 is HIJ 25%, SS 25%, LL 30%,OO 10%, and PP 10%.

E. Request for adjudication on the disposition of this case

FF made a request on May 26, 2016 to the Tax Tribunal for cancellation because the FF applied the exclusion period for imposition to 15,710,477 of global income tax for the year 2008 and the part for the wage-making district for the year 2008, and the exclusion period for imposition to 5 years.

(f) Current financial status of the FF;

FF has not left in its own name the assets worth being offered as joint collateral for creditors.

Evidence Nos. 1 through 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 43, 44, 46

each entry (including each number), the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) the reverse application of the denial of corporate personality;

The Defendant Company is a juristic person established by the FF as a juristic person and actually operated as a private business entity of the FF, and the FF is only operated to evade personal debt and avoid taxes, and thus constitutes abuse of the legal entity system. Accordingly, according to the legal doctrine of denial of legal personality, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the money claimed in the instant claim, given that the FF is liable to pay the Plaintiff the same debt as the obligation it owes to the Plaintiff.

2) Exercising creditor's subrogation right

The Defendant Company borrowed funds from FF to purchase the instant land from KLK. The FF loaned 6 billion won to AAA, 6.3 billion won to BB, 6.5 billion won toCC, and 4.72 billion won to EE, respectively.

The plaintiff is a tax creditor of FF, and FF is currently in the absence of financial resources, but does not exercise the right to loan or to return the money deposited to the defendant company. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to exercise the creditor's subrogation right to request the defendant to pay the money stated in the purport of the claim of this case.

B. The defendant company's assertion

1) In light of the management status and asset status of the Defendant Company, it is difficult to deem the FF to have established the Defendant Company as a means of avoiding its legal responsibility. Thus, it does not constitute abuse of legal personality.

2) The amount used in the purchase of the instant land is the amount that FF lent to the Defendant Company in the form of a short-term loan. The Defendant Company paid the FF a short-term loan to the FF, and there is no subrogation claim. Moreover, the global income tax amount for which 2008 years have elapsed after the expiration of the exclusion period for imposition of tax imposed on FF should be revoked. As such, the obligee’s subrogation’s subrogation’s subrogation’s preserved claim is not recognized.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff is a legitimate creditor against FF

1) In a case where there are objective reasons to believe that a certain legal relation or factual basis which is not subject to taxation is subject to taxation, and where it can only be clarified whether it is subject to taxation by accurately investigating the factual basis, it cannot be deemed apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the unlawful taxation that misleads the fact subject to taxation cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da31144, Jan. 23, 1998). Furthermore, even if there is an unlawful reason to revoke the taxation, unless it cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course, such taxation is valid until it is lawfully revoked by the fair and executory power or executory power of the administrative act, and thus, it cannot be denied in the civil procedure.

2) As to the instant case, it is difficult to view the instant disposition as null and void as a matter of course solely on the basis of the descriptions in the health belt, Eul’s evidence Nos. 43, 44, and 46. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim in the instant litigation procedure ought to be deemed to exist effectively. Therefore, the Defendants

B. As to the assertion that is a corporate body

1) Requirements for establishing the abuse of corporate personality

If a company maintains the external form of a juristic person, but actually takes the form of a juristic person, and it is used without permission for the purpose of avoiding the application of laws against the person behind the corporate personality, it cannot be permitted against justice and equity as it violates the principle of trust and good faith to deny the responsibility of the person behind the corporate status by asserting that even if the act of the company is an act of the company, it shall belong only to the company on the ground that the person behind the corporate body is a separate character. Therefore, if the company is deemed to be an individual enterprise behind the corporate personality, it shall be held liable for the act of the company as well as the person behind the corporate personality. In this context, if it appears that the company is merely an individual enterprise behind the corporate personality, it shall be determined on the basis of the point of time when the juristic act or fact-finding at issue is conducted, and it shall be determined individually by the law or decision-making procedure as to whether it is difficult to distinguish the assets and affairs between the company and the person behind the corporate personality, the degree of the company's poor corporate personality and the degree of its abuse.

In addition, when applying the reverse application theory of the denial of corporate personality, individuals in the company and its hinterland are treated as the same body only for a specific case so that individual creditors are able to be able to be able to directly responsible for the company. This is because the realization of the corporate personality system and the capital adequacy of the company may be impeded, and the conflict between interests with other interested parties of the relevant corporation may arise. In light of the subjective purpose of the abuse of corporate personality, it should be strictly applied in cases where corporate personality is considerably cancelled to the extent that the principle of the capital adequacy is violated objectively.

2) In the instant case:

As to whether FF abused the company system for the purpose of evading its own debt, the fact that most of the executives and shareholders composition of the Defendant Company is FF’s family member or FF’s employee is the FF’s employee. According to each of the statements stated in the evidence Nos. 11 and 18, FF made a statement to the effect that Defendant BBB,CC, and AAAAA was actually operated. Thus, according to the above facts acknowledged, FF is judged to have a substantial control over the Defendant Company.

Meanwhile, each of the above evidence and evidence in Eul evidence Nos. 16 through 33 can be seen as comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings, including the following circumstances: ① Defendant BB,CC, and EE have formed an independent trade relation as a corporation established prior to the act of embezzlement of FF; likewise, even after embezzlement took place; ② Defendant Company’s establishment purpose and business transactions related to the business of the company are most of the details of transactions related to the Defendant Company’s establishment and business. In light of the above facts, the above facts alone are merely merely a form of a legal entity, but merely takes the form of a legal entity, so it is difficult to conclude that the substance is deemed as merely a private company of FFF, or that it is difficult to distinguish the FF’s property and the assets of the Defendant Company, making it difficult for the Defendant Company established by abusing the legal entity system, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s aforementioned Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Company, the obligee of FF, without delay, is justified.

(c) the existence of subrogation claims

1) Whether FF’s claims are accepted for EE of the FF

The Plaintiff asserts that FF lent KRW 4,00,000 to AB. However, it is difficult to acknowledge the fact of lending only by means of the statement No. 11, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part on the premise that FF has a claim for return of KRW 4,00,000 against EE, is without merit.

2) Claim against DefendantCC, AAAAA, BB by FF

A) Issues

Since DefendantCC borrowed KRW 6.5 billion, Defendant AAAAA, and Defendant BB borrowed KRW 6.3 billion and remitted the same amount to AB from FF, there is no dispute as to the occurrence of subrogation claims (the time of borrowing will be prior to October 21, 2010, in which DefendantCC, AAAAA, and BB paid the instant land purchase price to AB). Accordingly, the issue is whether the said Defendants repaid money borrowed from FF.

B) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that DefendantCC, AAAAA, and BB made a full repayment of loans to FF by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the above evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 10, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 16 through 33, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 36 through 42. Thus, it is reasonable to view that FF made a full repayment of loans to FF. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the FF had a claim for the return of loans against DefendantCC, AAAA, and BB is groundless.

(1) In the financial statements of Defendant AAA, the short-term loans in 2010 are indicated as the 6,054,000 capital gains, the 6,080,00 capital gains, the 201 short-term loans are indicated as the 5,780,00 capital gains, the 2012 short-term loans are indicated as the 5,780,000 capital gains, and the 2013 short-term loans are fully repaid.

(2) The financial statements of Defendant BB indicate that the short-term loans in 2010 were all repaid in the short-term loans in 2010, namely, 8,081, 256, the wage-making loans in 201, the wage-making loans in 4,050,682, the wage-making loans in 201, the wage-making loans in 1,48,675, and the wage-making loans in 2012.

(3) The financial statements of DefendantCC include: (a) the occurrence of a short-term loan of 6,510,312; and (b) the payment of a labor-level loan of 6,506,339; and (c) the balance became a 3,972; and (d) the amount of a labor-level loan of 7,403,972; and (c) the amount of a labor-level loan of 201 was fully repaid after the occurrence by

(4) Defendant BBB was audited by an external auditor under the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies from 2010 to 2013 as a stock company with a total amount of 10 billion won or more.

(5) The FF deposited funds in custody of short-term financial products (e.g., CDs or cover notes), checks, etc. in DefendantCC, AAAA, and BB as shareholders’ short-term loans, and was returned from DefendantCC, AAA, and BB as shareholders’ short-term loans.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.