이 사건 주식을 양도하는 형식을 취하고 있으나, 실질은 명의신탁으로 봄이 상당함.[국승]
Busan High Court 2015Nu22073 (2016.08)
Although the form of transferring the instant shares takes place, it is reasonable to view the substance as a title trust.
(The main point of the original trial) The plaintiffs take the form of transferring the shares of this case to the non-party, but it is reasonable to see that the substance is the title trust, and thus, it is reasonable to designate the plaintiffs as the second taxpayer of the delinquent corporation
Article 39 (Secondary Liability to Pay Taxes by Investor)
2016Du46946 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax
AA
○ Head of tax office
Busan High Court Decision 2015Nu22073 Decided July 8, 2016
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. The grounds of appeal are as follows.
The Plaintiff acquired the shares of CCC from BB, etc. on September 2005, and completed the transfer of title, which the Plaintiff leased the name of shares to BB. On January 21, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred the shares to DB upon the request of BB from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the lower court determined otherwise even though the Plaintiff did not constitute an oligopolistic shareholder who bears secondary tax liability pursuant to Article 39 subparag. 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013).
2. However, such assertion is premised on the fact-finding by the lower court that deemed the Plaintiff, who acquired shares in its own name and transferred only the name in another person’s name, as a shareholder, as a result of the fact-finding of the lower court. This is merely a matter of dispute over the choice of evidence and the value of evidence belonging to the court’s free evaluation of evidence, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the lower court’s judgment in light of the records,
3. The Plaintiff’s appeal is without merit, 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 on the bench.