2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The reasoning of this court's ruling is as follows: (a) from "1. Recognition" to "2. The existence of tax liability exists" to "the plaintiffs' assertion", each of the above parts of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 3 to 4.1), and therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts that vary from the judgment of the first instance court;

B. Determination

(1) Article 39(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same) provides that “any of the following persons among oligopolistic shareholders shall be subject to secondary liability for tax payment.” Article 39(1)2 of the same Act provides that “a person who actually exercises the rights to shares or equity shares exceeding 50/100 of the total number of issued shares or equity shares of the relevant corporation” under item (a) shall be the head of the honorary committee, the president, the vice president, the managing director, the managing director, the director, or any other person who actually controls the management of the relevant corporation regardless of the title; “a spouse (including a person in a de facto marital relationship) of the person under items (a) and (b) and his/her lineal ascendants or descendants living together with the former,” and Article 39(2) provides that “any shareholder or limited partner or his/her relatives prescribed by Presidential Decree or any other person who has a special relationship with the latter shall not be deemed to have more than 30/10/10 of the total shares or equity shares of the relevant corporation.

The list of shareholders, statement of changes in stocks, etc. of the company of this case stated that the plaintiffs held 3,00 shares among the 10,000 shares issued by the company of this case since 2005 and 4,000 shares of the company of this case. The plaintiffs held 10,00 shares each among the 10,00 shares issued by the company of this case, and the representative director-general of the company of this case is the 3rd degree of the company of this case and the representative director-general of the company of this case is the spouse of this case who is the 3rd degree of the company of this case and the 100% of the total number of shares issued by the company of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs are oligopolistic shareholders liable for secondary tax payment under Article 39(1)2

However, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3 through 7, and 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony of the witness at the court below before the transfer, the authorityA and this shall be used for the establishment purpose of the corporation, and the plaintiff shall obtain the plaintiffs' certificate of personal seal impression and seal impression from the plaintiff Lee Dong-A and shall entrust the procedures for the establishment of the corporation with the tax accountant at his own discretion, and the tax accountant distributed 30% shares of each of the plaintiffs in the future. The plaintiffs are registered as the directors and auditors of the company of this case, but the company did not participate in the whole operation of the company after the establishment of the company. The facts that the company of this case was operated entirely after the establishment of the company of this case, and that the plaintiff Lee Jong-A shall not be deemed to have been registered in the shareholders' list or list of shareholders of this case as of February 3, 2013.

Meanwhile, in order for a taxation disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition should be insufficient, and it should be objectively clear that the defect violates the important laws and regulations, and in determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations that serve as the basis for the pertinent taxation should be examined in a teleological context and at the same time, reasonable consideration should be made on the specificity of the specific case itself. A taxation disposition conducted by a person who does not have any legal relations or factual relations that are subject to taxation should be deemed to be significant and obvious, but if there are objective circumstances that make it possible to believe that the legal relations or factual relations that are not subject to taxation is subject to taxation, it cannot be said that it would be apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be said that the taxation disposition of illegality, which misleads the fact of taxation, is null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da24986, Jul. 10, 2001).

In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the plaintiffs were registered as shareholders only formally on the list of shareholders of the company of this case, and cannot be seen as actual shareholders. However, as long as the plaintiffs were registered as shareholders of the company of this case under the list of shareholders and the statement of changes in the shares, the above circumstances can only be seen as cases where the facts can be clarified. Thus, it cannot be said that the defects are apparent.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the disposition of this case against the plaintiffs cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course, and as long as the disposition of this case cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course, the plaintiffs' assertion that there is no secondary tax liability related to the company of this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims in this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and therefore, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.