제2차 납세의무자지정처분은 적법함[국승]
The second taxpayer designation disposition is legitimate.
As a result of the Plaintiff’s nominal trust of shares, even if there is any defect claimed by the Plaintiff in the disposition in this case, such defect cannot be deemed apparent.
2016Guhap67883 Nullification of a tax imposition disposition
○ ○
○ Head of tax office
February 22, 2017
March 8, 2017
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
It is confirmed that each tax imposition disposition on the Plaintiff listed in the separate sheet as stated by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is invalid.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. U2S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Construction”) was established on April 30, 2009 for the purpose of construction work business, etc., and was dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act on December 6, 2016, each of the value-added taxes listed in the [Attachment 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and the [Attachment 3] No. 3, 6, and 7 and each of the corporate taxes listed in the [Attachment 1, 157,190,050.
B. The Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer for the delinquent tax amount by ○○ Construction; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the value-added tax, etc. listed in the [Attachment List Nos. 1 to 8; and (c) also, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the total income tax of KRW 29,068,00 that was disposed of as a bonus from the representative of ○○ Construction’s bonus (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “disposition
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
○○ Construction actually operated by the Plaintiff’s husband, Kim ○, the husband of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was either involved in or was unaware of its operation, and at his own discretion used the Plaintiff’s name. Therefore, the instant disposition based on a different premise is serious and obvious and invalid.
B. Determination
1) In order for a taxation to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the taxation disposition is insufficient, and its defect is objectively and objectively obvious. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the taxation in question, should be examined teleologically, and at the same time, reasonable consideration should be made on the specificity of the specific case itself. In addition, the taxation conducted by a person who does not have any legal relations or factual relations, which are subject to taxation, should be serious and obvious, but if objective circumstances exist that make it possible to believe that it is subject to taxation as to any legal relations or factual relations that is not subject to taxation, if it is possible to accurately examine the factual relations, it cannot be deemed that the defect is apparent even if it is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the taxation disposition is void automatically (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da24986, Jul. 10, 201).
2) In accordance with the purport of the entire arguments and arguments in the instant case, the health class, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3
In light of the following circumstances: (a) under the statement on the change of stocks, etc. in Yong-Nam Construction, the Plaintiff owned 100% of the shares of ○○ Construction during the business year 2010 to the business year 2012; (b) the Plaintiff was registered as an internal director, the only representative of ○○ Construction, on February 9, 2011; and (c) the Plaintiff appears to be registered as the representative of ○○ Construction even if the Plaintiff voluntarily made a statement; (d) at least objective and extra-type, there was a factual basis that could be misunderstood that the Plaintiff is the representative of ○○ Construction or 100% shareholder, or that the Plaintiff actually exercised his/her rights as ○○○ Construction. Even if Kim○ operated the said shares by using the Plaintiff’s name or entrusted the said shares to the Plaintiff, such circumstance can only be seen after an accurate investigation of factual relations. Thus, even if there is any defect in the Plaintiff’s assertion on the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not reasonable.
3. Conclusion
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.