A. At present, the Plaintiff is registered as a shareholder who owns 75% of the total number of outstanding shares of the non-party company in the register of shareholders of ○○○○○-ri 608-○, Inc. (the trade name before the change on August 30, 2004 is referred to as “○○○○○○○”; hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”). B. On March 14, 2005, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 8,065,060 for the second period of 204 on March 14, 2005, imposed value-added tax of KRW 25,602,150 for the second period of 204 on January 304, 2006, each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 8,101,580 for the corporate tax of KRW 204 and each disposition of imposition of KRW 8,150 for the second period of 204.

C. The defendant deemed that the plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder holding 75% of the total number of outstanding shares of the non-party company and actually exercising the right to own stocks. Under Article 39 (1) 2 (a) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7930 of Apr. 28, 2006; hereinafter the same), the defendant designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer, and issued a disposition of imposition of the corporate tax of 6,076,180 won for the year 2004 for which the plaintiff was delinquent, and the tax amount of 6,048,790 won for the second period of 2004 for the second period of 204 for the second period of 204 for the second period of value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition in this case").

D. The plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review on February 23, 2007. However, the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's request on March 26, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and the relevant laws, and the plaintiff, on August 30, 2004, delegated the transfer procedure of the non-party company to a certified judicial scrivener together with all documents related to the transfer of the corporation. The transferee obtained processed data from the data after changing the representative director and the trade name of the non-party company by using the above documents and received them from the data and omitted the value-added tax, etc., which is the disposition of this case. Since the plaintiff had no practical exercise of rights to the stocks by transferring all the shares of the non-party company to the transferee, the disposition of this case which the defendant designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer should be revoked.

(b) Related statutes;

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) At the time of May 12, 2004, the Plaintiff was registered as a director of the non-party company, and held 500 shares of the non-party company out of 10,000 shares (5 percent shares of the non-party company).

(2) On June 10, 2004, on which the representative director of the non-party company was the representative director of the non-party company, the non-party company reported the suspension of business until December 10 of the same year. However, the non-party company's business was not operated even thereafter, the non-party company's shares 7,000 shares of the non-party company and the non-party company transferred management rights to the plaintiff.

(3) However, the Plaintiff determined to transfer the non-party company because it is difficult to manage the non-party company, and delegated all documents necessary for the transfer of the non-party company to the certified judicial scrivener, such as the seal impression of the non-party company, the corporate passbook, the Plaintiff who was a shareholder or an officer at the time, the certificate of personal seal impression, the certificate of acceptance of shares (a seal affixed to the transferor column of the share transfer contract and a seal affixed to the transferee).

(4) On August 30, 2004, Kim Jong-dae, Lee Jong-hoon, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "the transferee of this case") retired from the office of appointment of the plaintiff and the auditor, a representative of the non-party company, on the same day, using documents delegated by the plaintiff to the certified judicial scrivener as above. Of the assignee of this case, Kim Jong-ok was appointed by the representative director of the non-party company on the same day, Kim Il-ok was appointed by the director of the non-party company on the same day, and Kim Il-hoon

(5) In relation to this, an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders held on August 30, 2004 was held without the Plaintiff’s actual attendance by delegating the procedure to a certified judicial scrivener as above.

(6) The Plaintiff retired from office as the director of the non-party company, and the transferee of this case, such as Kim○, was appointed as the officer of the non-party company, and the non-party company began to receive false tax invoices

[Ground of recognition] The evidence Nos. 3 and 4 Nos. 2-1 and 2-2, the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-○, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) In order to have a shareholder of a corporation bear the secondary tax liability, the shareholder shall be an oligopolistic shareholder who owns more than 51/100 of the total number of shares issued by the corporation and actually holds the corporation's shares. Only if the shareholder is registered as a shareholder in the shareholder registry of the corporation in its form, the tax authority shall not impose the tax liability. However, the tax authority shall have the burden of proving the burden of proof. However, the tax authority must prove it by the data such as the shareholder registry, the statement of stock transfer, and the list of the corporate register, and the fact that the actual shareholder appears to be a shareholder in light of the above data, but the real shareholder is not a real shareholder, unlike the name, should be proved by the nominal shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du1615, Jul. 9, 2004; 95Nu13203, Dec. 12, 1995).

(2) As to the instant case, the Plaintiff decided to transfer the shares and management rights of the non-party company to the transferee of this case, and delegated all documents, such as the share transfer contract related to the shares and management rights of the non-party company to the certified judicial scrivener, the Plaintiff retired from the office of the non-party company on August 30, 2004, and the transferee of this case was appointed as the director of the non-party company on the same day, and the temporary general meeting of shareholders held on August 30, 2004 was conducted without the Plaintiff’s actual attendance, and the non-party company received false tax invoices from the data after the transferee was appointed as the officer of the non-party company. In light of the fact that the transferee of this case received false tax invoices after the transferee was appointed as the officer of the non-party company, the Plaintiff is registered as the shareholder of the non-party company on the register of shareholders, but it cannot be deemed as a person who actually exercises the

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition that deemed the Plaintiff as the secondary tax obligor of Nonparty Company was unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case was justified, and it was decided as per Disposition by admitting it.