2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax ○○ (including additional tax) and increased additional tax ○○ (including additional tax) and ○○○ (including additional tax) for the year 2009 on October 0, 2013 against Plaintiff ○○ (hereinafter “○○”) and the imposition of value-added tax ○○ (including additional tax) and increased additional tax for the year 2009 against Plaintiff ○○ (hereinafter “○○”) shall be revoked.

A. On October 0, 2008, the plaintiffs related to the specially related parties respectively acquired 40% of the total floor area of the building of 35th underground floor (hereinafter referred to as the "site of this case") from the ○○○○○○-gu, ○○○-dong (hereinafter referred to as '○○○○-dong') (hereinafter referred to as '○○-dong') and 1,000 square meters of the land located in ○○○-dong (hereinafter referred to as '○○-dong' of this case') and 1,000 square meters (hereinafter referred to as 'the site of this case' of this case) and about 00 square meters (hereinafter referred to as 'the building of this case' of this case) expected to be constructed on the ground of 3rd underground floor and about 5th underground floor of this case (hereinafter referred to as 'the building of this case', and 'the building of this case' of this case').

B. Since then, the company of this case paid 000 won to ○○○ in the name of down payment and intermediate payment, and transferred the status of purchaser of the real estate of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "transfer of this case") on October 0, 2009, with the price of 000 won to ○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Yyoung○"), and the company of this case did not issue a tax invoice for the transfer of this case on the ground that the transfer of this case constitutes "transfer of business which is not considered as the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act".

"C. Following the Defendant: (a) deemed that the transfer of this case constitutes the supply of goods subject to value-added tax; (b) notified the instant company of the correction of KRW 000 for the first term portion of value-added tax in October 0, 201; (c) however, as the instant company closed and closed its liquidation on October 0, 2009, it did not pay it; (c) on October 0, 2013, deeming that the Plaintiffs, who are investors of the instant company, constituted oligopolistic shareholders, were designated as secondary taxpayers; and (d) notified the Plaintiffs to pay value-added tax 00 won (including additional tax), value-added tax 00 won (including additional tax 00 won), value-added tax 00 won (including additional tax 00 won), and increased increased additional tax 00 won (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff ○”), the Plaintiffs dissatisfied with this request to the Tax Tribunal on October 20, 2013, but were dismissed.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 11 through 17, and Eul evidence 1 through 7

(Re-, the purport of the entire pleadings)

2. Determination as to whether the part requesting the revocation of the additional dues is lawful

Before determining the Plaintiffs’ assertion, the Plaintiffs received a increased surcharge of KRW 000 (Plaintiff Indones○○) and KRW 000 (Plaintiff Indones○○○) by adding up the amount of each disposition of this case to the amount of each disposition of this case on October 0, 2013, and also sought revocation of this part. Therefore, we examine whether the above part of the claim is lawful or not.

If a national tax is not paid by the payment deadline, the additional dues or increased additional dues as prescribed by the National Tax Collection Act are naturally generated pursuant to the provisions of the Act without a final procedure by the tax office.

In addition, notification of increased charges cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal litigation (Supreme Court Decision 2005.

6. 10. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da15482 Decided 10.

Therefore, even if the Defendant notified that the principal tax should be paid in a notice of payment as stated in Gap evidence No. 16 (referring to each of the dispositions in this case) and notified that the time limit for payment should include KRW 000 (Plaintiff In ○○) and KRW 000 (Plaintiff Jeong○○), such notification is merely a notification of the concept informing the existence of the additional dues, and it cannot be deemed a disposition that is the object of appeal litigation. Thus, the part of the claim for revocation of the increased additional dues among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful.

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The instant transfer is a transfer of business.

The instant company carried on real estate rental business, and transferred the instant real estate, which is its underlying asset, to Young○○, and comprehensively transferred the rights and obligations incidental to engaging in real estate rental business, such as the status of a purchaser of the instant real estate as a lessor and the status of a lessor. Therefore, the instant transfer should be deemed to be “transfer of business that does not fall under the supply of goods”.

2) The Plaintiffs are not substantially shareholders of the instant company.

The plaintiffs held 40% and 30% shares in the company of this case respectively. However, the plaintiffs merely lent only the name for holding shares to the company of this case, and it does not constitute the secondary taxpayer for the company of this case.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant transfer is a business transfer

Article 6 (6) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that "the transfer of business prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be excluded from the supply of goods subject to value-added tax" and Article 17 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010) delegated by the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010) provides that "the term "the transfer of business" means the comprehensive succession of all rights and obligations concerning the business to each place of business to each place of business, which is determined not to fall under the supply of goods subject to value-added tax. The "transfer of business" refers to the comprehensive transfer of physical and human facilities, rights and obligations, etc., including

The term “real estate transaction” refers to a real estate transaction, which is a requirement for taxation of business income tax and value-added tax, should be determined in light of social norms, considering whether the transaction is for profit-making purposes, and whether the transaction is continuity and repetition of the degree that can be seen as business activity in light of the scale, frequency, mode, etc. of the transaction, and whether the transaction is deemed as business activity. Even if a person who registered a real estate rental business temporarily leases a building after construction of the building and then transfers the building to another person, the transfer does not constitute a transfer of business subject to non-taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu92, Nov. 7, 1995).

In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiffs argued that the company had engaged in real estate leasing business based on the underlying asset of this case before the transfer of this case, and that the transfer of this case transferred all of the real estate leasing business to ○○○. Therefore, in order for the transfer of this case to fall under the transfer of business which is not subject to value-added tax, the company of this case engaged in real estate leasing business, including the property of the business, and the real estate leasing business should fall under the case where the real estate leasing business is replaced only due to the comprehensive transfer of personal facilities, rights and duties, etc., and the overall purport of the arguments is added to the above facts and evidence.

① First, the approval for provisional use of the instant building was made on October 0, 2008. The instant company: (a) on October 24, 2008, the previous company deposited 1,40,000,000 won, and rent for part of the instant building (No. 101-1 and No. 201 of the first floor) and ○ Bank (No. 101-1 and No. 201 of the second floor).

The fact that a lease contract was concluded with a period of 00 won per month, 3 years for lease period (hereinafter referred to as the "lease of this case"), and on October 0, 2008, a branch office with the main business of real estate leasing business in the building of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "branch of this case") was established, and on October 0, 2009, ○○ Bank established a branch office with the main business of real estate leasing business in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "branch of this case") on October 0, 2009 by paying the balance of the rental deposit in accordance with the above lease contract, and after the transfer of this case on October 0, 2009, Young○○ established a branch office with the main business of real estate leasing business in this case as of October 0, 2009.

② However, the period during which the lease of this case existed between the company of this case and ○○ Bank is less than two months from October 0, 2009 to October 0, 2009, and the amount received by the company of this case due to the transfer of this case is less than two hundred won per month as seen earlier, while the amount received by the company of this case due to the transfer of this case is less than 000 won per month (the profit from the disposition of this case by the company of this case is reported as 00 won based on the settlement of accounts). The total floor area of the building of this case is less than 00 square meters, while the area of the object of this case is less than 00 square meters. Ultimately, the company of this case closed its business on October 0, 2009 where three months have not elapsed since the transfer of this case, and it is difficult to view that the real estate real estate was transferred as part of the real estate real estate sales businessman's business operation. In addition to the above circumstances, even if the company of this case was established as part of real estate sales business.

③ On the other hand, on October 0, 2009, ○○○ has completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale and purchase on the instant real estate on the ground of October 0, 2008. He sold 00 households within the instant building on which the registration of ownership transfer was made from October 0, 2009 to October 0, 2009. On October 0, 2009, all of the remaining 00 households were so-called so-called ○○ Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (the instant site was disposed of as the object of the site for the instant building). Accordingly, even if ○○○○ had not completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate, it is reasonable to have commenced the sale of the instant building from the time when 10 days elapsed since the instant transfer without undergoing the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate, and to have been sold within a very shorter time than 6 months after the overall evaluation of the instant real estate lease as a part of the instant building, and to have been sold within ○○○○ Investment Securities Co.

④ In addition, upon examining the agreement on the lease of the inspection, “○ Bank” provides that “after the construction of the instant building, the instant company consents to the transfer of all the status of the instant company to the real estate investment trust or to the third party designated by the instant company” (Evidence A5 and Article 22). At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the instant company appears to have already had the intention to sell the instant real estate at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement.

Therefore, even if the company was planning the business strategy in relation to the lease of the building of this case at the time of holding the real estate of this case, and the leased agency (refer to the evidence Nos. 3, 9, and 21 of this case) was selected (refer to the evidence No. 3, 9, and 21 of this case), it appears to be close to the City/Do intending to carry on real estate rental business rather than to carry on real estate rental business in full, and thus, the transfer of this case cannot be deemed to fall under the "business transfer, not subject to value-added tax as provided in the above Act and subordinate statutes."

2) Whether the plaintiffs are shareholders of the company of this case

The plaintiffs are listed as the members of the company of this case. However, the plaintiffs asserted to the effect that they are employees of ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”) of the former law firm that was in charge of legal advisers in the establishment of the company of this case, and that the law firm of this case requires the plaintiffs to establish the company of this case, and that it is necessary to loan this issue to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are merely registered as the investors and employees of the company of this case by reliance on the fact that they are registered as investors and employees of the company of this case. The plaintiffs are merely registered as the investors and employees of the company of this case. The plaintiffs are not accurately aware of who actually received the contributions of the company of this case and actually operated the company of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs are merely the nominal holders of this case and do not actually constitute the secondary taxpayers of the company of this case.

Whether a person is an oligopolistic shareholder of the family of a lake and marsh under Article 39(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 911, Jan. 1, 2010) shall be determined by whether the person is a member of a majority of the shares owned. Specifically, even if the person does not have any fact of participating in the company management,

(2) The tax authority’s list of shareholders shall not be deemed to be an oligopolistic shareholder; and

B. Where it is proved by data, such as a statement of stock transfer status or certified copy of register, etc., and, in case where, in light of the above data, even if it appears to be a single stockholder, the actual owner is stolen, or registered in a name other than the real owner's name, it is merely a

Although the name alone cannot be seen as a shareholder, the nominal owner who asserts that he is not a shareholder ought to prove that he is not a shareholder (Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615 Decided July 9, 2004).

In light of the above legal principles, we examine the facts that the plaintiffs are members of the company of this case 40% (Plaintiff Man-○) and 30% (Plaintiff Jeong-○) shares of the company of this case.

Therefore, as alleged by the plaintiffs, the beneficial owner of the company of this case as alleged by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs bear the burden of proof for the circumstance that the plaintiffs are not merely lending the name.

It will be said that it will be the case.

However, it is suggested as evidence as shown in this part of the argument that the plaintiffs presented as evidence No. 22

According to the above evidence, each entry of evidence Nos. 26 and the fact-finding on ○○○○, which is a telegraphic body of the company, the plaintiffs operated its business as ○○○ and ○○○○ Office (e.g., “○○○” at the time of the establishment of the company, and thereafter established a law firm and completed the registration of incorporation as of October 0, 2009, and completed liquidation on June 1, 2012) at an attorney-at-law or a certified judicial scrivener’s office (e.g., Table 1 and 2). It can be acknowledged that the company paid KRW 00 to Nonparty ○, who is a member of ○○○○○, to the non-party 1, who is a member of ○○○○, paid KRW 00,000 to the non-party ○○, who is the representative director of the company of this case, and it is not sufficient to prove that the plaintiffs were in the name of ○○○○, which is a specific person.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 10 and 11 of Eul, the following [Attachment 3] and [Attachment 4] have been operated by Plaintiff ○○○○, a multiple special purpose corporation (SPC), such as the entry in [Attachment 3] and [Attachment 4], and all special circumstances including this.

(2) evidence No. 13, 14 of this title

According to each statement, it can be acknowledged that the corporation of this case closed its business on October 0, 2009 and paid 000 won to the plaintiffs as dividends, respectively, as well. Each of the above materials is inconsistent with the assertion that the plaintiffs are merely the employees of the pure attorney-at-law office. ③ The contents of e-mail given and received by the certified judicial scrivener and the investment advisory company in charge of liquidation of the company of this case are appropriate that the liquidation amount should be KRW 00,000, not the above 00,000 (Evidence No. 25), and the plaintiffs did not explain this difference (Evidence No. 25).

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the plaintiffs' increased additional charges is unlawful, and all of the claims of this case are dismissed. The remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed.

this decision is delivered with the judgment of the court below.