원고를 차명주주로 봄이 상당하므로，원고가 과점주주임을 전제로 한 이 사건 처분은 위법함[국패]
Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap16718 ( October 15, 2013)
Since it is reasonable to see the plaintiff as the second-name shareholder, and the disposition of this case premised on the plaintiff as the oligopolistic shareholder is unlawful.
(1) The Plaintiff’s physical guarantee can be deemed to be an act to assist the self-style ParkCC. The Plaintiff’s final academic background is highly likely to be nominal due to the lack of expertise in order to operate the chemical drug wholesale, but it is difficult to deem that ParkCC led to the disposal of shares, and that the shareholders’ members were all family members, and thus, paid the share price.
Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
2013Nu10931 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.
KimA
Head of Guro Tax Office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap16718 decided March 15, 2013
August 30, 2013
October 25, 2013
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Cheong-gu Office
On June 1, 2011, the Defendant revoked the imposition of OOO(including additional taxes), OO(including additional taxes), OO(including additional taxes), 2009, 2008, OO(including additional taxes), 2008, 2000, and OO(including additional taxes) of corporate tax for the business year 2010.
subsection (1)
The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
The reasons for this decision are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance.
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.