원고를 체납법인의 과점주주로 볼 수 없음[국패]
Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap1686 (29 December 2012)
Cho High Court Decision 201Do2649 ( November 22, 2011)
No plaintiff shall be deemed an oligopolistic stockholder of a delinquent corporation.
(1) In full view of the following facts: (a) there is no record on the payment of the shares of the delinquent corporation under the name of the Plaintiff; (b) there is no record on the details of the account transaction under the name of the Plaintiff; (c) there is no record on the fact that the delinquent corporation was aware of another person as the representative director of the delinquent corporation; and (d) there is no
Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
2012Nu22470 Revocation of revocation of designation as a person liable for secondary tax payment.
The AA
Head of the District Tax Office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap1686 decided June 29, 2012
December 20, 2012
February 28, 2013
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The use of port consumption shall be borne by the Defendant.
1. Purport of claim
On March 8, 2011, the Defendant designated the Plaintiff on March 8, 201 as the secondary taxpayer of BB online, and revoked each imposition of the Plaintiff’s wage income tax of KRW 000 in 2008, value added tax of KRW 000 in 2009, value added tax of KRW 1 in 2010, and value added tax of KRW 00 in 200 in 2010.
2. Purport of appeal
The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.
1. Objects of adjudication of this Court;
With respect to the plaintiff's claim for revocation of each disposition on imposition stated in the purport of the claim, the court of first instance rejected the part of the plaintiff's claim for revocation of each additional dues and increased additional dues stated in attached Form 1, and cited the part of the claim for revocation of the principal tax on the money. For this reason, the defendant only appealed against the defendant who ordered revocation of the principal tax in the judgment of the court of first instance. Accordingly, the appeal of this court is limited to the part of the claim for
2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and the judgment on the argument that the defendant maintains in the appellate court is added to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 1 and 3 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance), and it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
< The part to be used in case of :
O 4 to 3rd below '2.00 won on July 18, 2007, and July 20, 2007 '6.00 won on July 9, 2007 and July 20, 2007 '6.0 million won on July 1, 2007 and July 4, 2007'.
O Nos. 6 1 to 2 1 ... .... ..... .............................
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
피고는 항소심에서도，원고가 주식변동상황명세서상 체납법인의 과점주주로 신고되어 있을 뿐만 아니라 법인등기부상 체납법인의 대표이사로 등재되어 있으며 체납법인의 직원들이 원고를 이사로 호칭하면서 원고에게 업무보고를 한 점 등에 비추어，원고는 체납법인의 과점주주로 볼 수 있으므로，이를 전제로 한 이 사건 처분은 적법하다고 거듭 주장한다. 그러나 앞서 인용한 제l심 판결이 적절하게 판시하고 있듯이(제1심 판결문 제4쪽 아래에서 5째 줄부터 제7쪽 제5행까지)，체납법인의 주식대금은 쿼터뷰가 납입하였고，체납법인의 운용자금 역시 쿼터뷰 또는 오QQ이 지원한 것으로 보이는 점1 체납법인은 실질적으로 오QQ이 운영하였고， 체납법인의 직원들도 오QQ을 체납법인의 실질적인 대표이사로 인식하고 있었던 것으로 보이는 점，원고가 체납법인의 주주로서 배당금을 받았다거나 대표이사로서 급여를 받았다는 자료도 없는 점 등의 제반 사정에 비추어 보면，원고는 체납법인의 과점주주라고 볼 수 없다. 따라서 이와 다른 전제에 선 이 사건 처분은 위법하므로， 피고의 주장은 받아들일 수 없다.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.