[제2차납세의무자지정처분취소][공1984.8.1.(733),1213]
Whether a person is the secondary taxpayer of the company, who owns not less than 51/100 of the total amount of shares issued by the company (negative)
The plaintiff is the punishment of the non-party (A) and the non-party (B) is the deceased status of the non-party (A), but the plaintiff and the non-party (B) do not fall under the scope of the related parties under Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, even if the sum of shares owned by the plaintiff and the non-party (B) exceeds 51/100 of the total shares issued by the non-party
Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 20 of Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.
The Director of the Korean Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu482 delivered on February 15, 1984
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In its reasoning, the judgment of the court below determined that the plaintiff is the 10,000 share shares issued by the non-party 1,50 shares of the non-party 1 and that the plaintiff is the 4,500 share shares issued by the non-party 1, and that the non-party 1 is the 4,500 share shares of the non-party 2 and even if the above non-party 1 is the 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the plaintiff and the non-party 1 do not fall under the 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Accordingly, the decision of the court below to this purport is just and justified, and the measure that the plaintiff is not the 2
2. Among the theories, the fact that the plaintiff was in the position of director of the above company, and thus, is an employee or a related person in an employment relationship falling under Article 20 subparagraph 9 of the above Enforcement Decree, the fact-finding court did not have any assertion or evidence, and therefore, it cannot be said that it is an appropriate ground for appeal citing a new fact in the trial and criticism of the original decision. Thus, this cannot be adopted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)