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

Cheong-gu Office

The same is as the order (the date of the disposition entered by the plaintiff in the complaint is recognized as a clerical error in November 7, 2012).

A. From November 17, 2003 to November 27, 2009, the Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) was registered as the representative director of the CCC (CCC) and the Korea Shipping (BBland on August 5, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”); from November 27, 2009 to August 5, 2010, the Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) was registered as the representative director of the instant company; from November 27, 2009 to 10,000 shares issued by the instant company; from November 17, 2003 to November 27, 2009, the Plaintiff’s wife owned 5,000 shares issued by the instant company; from November 17, 2003 to March 10, 2006, the Plaintiff owned 1050 shares of the instant company from 10,501 shares owned the Plaintiff’s shares.

B. On July 14, 2010, the Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) who are shareholders of the instant company and the FFF Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “FFF Shipping,” and the Plaintiff, etc. and FFF Shipping (hereinafter referred to as “transferee”) concluded a stock transfer agreement with the Plaintiff, etc. to transfer 10,000 shares (Plaintiff 5,000 shares, 1,500 shares, 2,000 shares, each of the designated parties, and 1,500 shares, respectively) of the instant company’s management rights and shares to be transferred to the FFF Shipping (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). The main contents are as follows.

〇 대금 총액은 OOOO원으로 하고, 양수인은 임대보증금 등 채권 OOOO원과 채무 OOOO원을 승계하고, 차액 OOOO원(OOOO원 + OOOO원 - OOOO원)을 양도인에게 지급한다. 양수인은 PC방 PC 인수비 OOOO원, 세금 관련 조정대금 OOOO원을 추가로 지급한다.

〇 계약일은 2010. 7. 15.로 하고, 양도인은 양수인의 책임으로 언급되지 않은 일체의 변동부채와 2010. 7. 15. 이전까지 발생된 모든 비용을 부담하고, 양수인은 2010. 7. 16. 이후 발생되는 은행이자, 관리비 등을 부담한다.

C. The OOOOO members under the instant contract were paid on August 4, 2010, and around that time, the Plaintiff prepared a supplementary agreement with the Plaintiff representing the transferor, representing the transferor, as follows. By August 5, 2010, the share certificates of the instant company were not issued until August 5, 2010.

On August 4, 2010, the transferee and the transferor paid and received the down payment OOO of the down payment.

On August 5, 2010, 50% of the total number of shares issued under the name of the Plaintiff, i.e., 50% of the total number of shares, shall be transferred to the transferee with a certificate of seal imprint attached, and the transferee shall immediately transfer the above shares, and the transferee shall hold a general meeting of shareholders to dismiss the Plaintiff SongA, etc. who is a director, and shall be composed of new management such as

By August 12, 2010, the OOO members out of the remainder shall be paid until August 12, 2010, the OO members shall be until August 16, 2010, and the rest of the OO members shall be paid until September 30, 2010. (If the contract amount is combined, it exceeds the original agreed OO members, but it is not clear in the name)

○ Transfer of the name of 50% (15% each of the designated parties, 20% of the FFF Shipping 20%) of the outstanding shares not transferred at the time of the payment of the balance to the assignee.

D. On August 5, 2010, the Plaintiff issued the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression, certificate of personal seal impression, certificate of passbook and passbook of the instant company to the transferee. On August 5, 2010, the transferee opened a temporary general meeting of shareholders on August 5, 2010 and registered new H as the representative director, and the grandchildren II as the director, and the Plaintiff resigned from the company director of the instant company on the same day.

E. Meanwhile, on November 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) deemed the Plaintiff, etc. as the oligopolistic shareholder of the instant company; (b) designated the Plaintiff, etc. as the secondary taxpayer; and (c) issued a notice of payment for the same amount of tax as indicated in the separate sheet within the scope of shares owned by the Plaintiff, etc. (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

F. Accordingly, the Plaintiff et al. filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial against each of the dispositions of this case. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said request on the ground that “it is reasonable to deem that the transfer of shares of the instant company was not yet made because the payment of purchase price was not completed despite the contract of this case, in light of the following: (a) there was no evidence to deem that the Tax Tribunal, on April 9, 2013, changed the name of the shareholder on the shareholder registry of the instant company; (b) there was no balance under the contract of this case due to the difference in the settlement of accounts between the transferor and transferee; and (c) the transferee did not report securities transaction tax, such as transfer income

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff et al. transferred all of the shares of the instant company to the transferee pursuant to the instant contract, they were not in the shareholder status at the time of each of the instant dispositions, and they were not in the shareholder status at the time of each of the instant dispositions, and thus, they were not in the shareholder status at the time of the secondary taxpayers, and thus, the Defendant’

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 39(1)2(a) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 201) provides that “A person who actually exercises the rights to shares exceeding 50/100 of the total number of shares issued by the pertinent corporation among oligopolistic shareholders shall have secondary tax liability.”

In light of the legislative intent, amendment process, etc. of the foregoing provision, in order to constitute “the exercise of rights to stocks in excess of 50/100” as referred to in the foregoing provision, there must be at least the status of exercising shareholders’ rights to the stocks held at the time of establishment of tax liability, even if the actual exercise of shareholders’ rights is not a result. Therefore, in cases where there is no possibility of exercising shareholders’ rights at the time of establishment of tax liability, secondary tax liability under the above provision is not liable (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du9287, Dec. 26, 201

(2) In light of the following circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff et al. was in the position to exercise the oligopolistic shareholder’s right to the shares of the instant company at the time of the establishment of each of the instant tax liability, and thus, each of the instant dispositions based on the premise that the Plaintiff et al. was the secondary taxpayer is unlawful.

① As seen earlier, until August 5, 2010, the share certificates of the instant company were not issued until the time. The transfer of shares before the issuance of share certificates under Article 335(3) of the Commercial Act is effective against the company when six months have elapsed since the company's establishment. The transfer of shares before the issuance of share certificates becomes effective only by the declaration of intention of the parties in accordance with the general principle of assignment of nominative claims. A transferee of shares before the issuance of share certificates can solely prove his/her transfer of shares without the need for the transferor's cooperation, and then file a claim for the transfer of shares with the company: Provided, That in order to oppose the transfer to a third party other than the company, the transfer notification or consent by the certificate with a fixed date equivalent to the transfer of nominative claims is required.

② On August 4, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred 5,00 shares under the name of the Plaintiff to the transferee with a certificate of seal impression attached thereto, and transferred 5,000 shares on August 5, 2010 to the transferee at the time of the remainder payment. The Plaintiff issued a certificate of seal impression to the transferee on August 5, 2010. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s shares 5,00 shares issued to the transferee on August 5, 2010 to the transferee that the Plaintiff issued the certificate of seal impression was effective between the Plaintiff, transferee, and the company.

③ In addition, on August 5, 2010, the Plaintiff delivered all documents related to the transfer of title to a transferee; on the same day, the Plaintiff resigned from office as a director with the power of representation of the instant company; and the right of management was transferred by forming a photo taken by new HH, etc. as a transferee. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the transferee did not pay any balance that the transferee promised, but it did not return the shares transferred to the Plaintiff or

④ As above, insofar as the Plaintiff legitimately transferred 5,000 shares of the instant company owned by it to the transferee around August 5, 2010 (50%), since shares of the instant company owned by the designated parties are merely 3,00 shares (30%) and do not exceed 50/100 of the total number of shares issued by the instant company, the designated parties also do not constitute oligopolistic shareholders.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of each disposition of this case is well-grounded, all of them shall be accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.