제2차납세의무 지정통지 처분취소[국승]
Examination Income 2008-004 (2008.03.03)
2. Revocation of revocation of designation of secondary tax liability
Although it is alleged that the second tax liability is inappropriate to designate it as an oligopolistic shareholder, it is reasonable to see that it is an oligopolistic shareholder in the prosecutor's investigation and court decision.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
Article 39 (Secondary Tax Liability of Investors)
Article 40 (Secondary Liability to Pay Taxes by Juristic Person)
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.
On November 21, 2007 (the date of the disposition stated in the complaint on November 16, 2007) that the Defendant made against the Plaintiffs is deemed to be a clerical error in writing) revocation of all the imposition dispositions following the designation of each secondary tax liability of KRW 903,731,530, each of the global income tax imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs.
1. Circumstances of dispositions of the instant case;
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-1, 2-2, 1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 3-1, 3-1, 4-1, 4-1.
가. 원고 주식회사 ☆☆☆(2007. 8. 16. 주식회사 ▲▲에서 주식회사 ☆☆☆로 상호 변경하였다. 이하 '☆☆☆'라 한다)은 주택신축판매업을 목적으로 하는 주식회사이고, 원고 주식회사 ☆☆☆인터내셔널(2007. 8. 16. 주식회사 ★★개발에서 주식회사 ☆☆☆인터내셔널로 상호를 변경하였다, 이하 '☆☆☆인터내셔널'이라 한다)은 건축 및 주택건설사업 등을 목적으로 하는 주식회사이다.
B. The director of Busan Regional Tax Office confirmed that the 100% shares of the plaintiffs were owned by 100% as a result of the corporate tax red survey against the plaintiffs, and notified the defendant thereof.
C. In the event that the amount of KRW 952,53,00 of the global income tax imposed on Kim○○ was delinquent, the Defendant issued the disposition imposing the above amount of tax on November 21, 2007 on the grounds that Kim○○ owned 100% of the Plaintiffs’ shares, by notifying the Plaintiffs of the designation of the secondary taxpayer in accordance with Article 40 of the Framework Act on National Taxes of KRW 903,731,530 of the global income tax imposed on Kim○○ (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
D. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 7, 2008, but were all dismissed on March 3, 2008.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiffs' principal
The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that Kim ○ actually exercised management rights as one shareholder at the time of establishment of the plaintiffs, but the shareholders registered in the register of shareholders as a shareholder by acquiring substantial shares and participating as shareholders through the process of capital increase and change of shares actually hold shares. However, even if some shareholders provided investments by borrowing from Kim ○, it does not have any problem in the payment of investments. Thus, Kim ○ cannot be viewed as an oligopolistic shareholder, and thus, the disposition of this case by viewing otherwise should be revoked because it is unlawful.
(b) Related statutes;
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
(1) 살피건대, 을1호증의 1, 2, 을2호증의 1, 2, 을3호증의 1, 2, 3, 을4호증의 1, 2, 3, 을5호증의 1, 2, 3. 을6, 8, 9호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 춰지를 종합하여 보 면, 원고 ☆☆☆의 주주명부상 주주들의 주식 취득자금은 김○○이 실사주인 AA토건 주식회사(이하 'AA토건'이라 한다)의 자금 또는 김○○의 가지급금 등으로 형성되어 윤◎◎, 강◇◇, 강BB, 임□□ 등의 명의 계좌를 통한 자금세탁을 거쳐 납입된 사실, 원고 ☆☆☆인터내셔널의 주주명부상 주주들의 주식 취득자금은 AA토건의 자금 또는 검○○의 가지급금으로 형성되어 이■■, 김△△, 강◇◇, 강BB 등의 명의 계좌를 통 한 자금세탁을 거쳐 납입된 사실, 김○○은 2007. 6. 14. 검찰 조사에서 원고 ☆☆☆, 원고 ☆☆☆인터내셔널, AA토건은 자신이 100% 차명으로 지분을 소유하고 있는 자신의 회사라고 진술한 사실, 김○○은 조세범처벌법위반죄 등으로 기소되어 부산지방법원에서 2008. 2. 15. 징역 6년 및 추징금 100,000,00원을, 부산고등법원에서 2008. 8. 28. 징역 3년 6월 및 추징금 100,000,000원을, 대법원에서 2008. 12. 11. 상고기각판결을 각 선고받아 그 무렵 위 판결이 확정되었는데, 위 판결에서 김○○이 원고들의 지분 전부를 차명으로 보유하면서 실질적으로 운영하였음이 인정된 사실 등이 인정되므로, 이러한 사실에 비추어, 김○○은 원고들의 주식 100%를 소유하고 있는 과점주주로 봄이 상당하고, 원고들 주장처럼 이와 달리 볼만한 증거자료나 사정이 없다.
(2) Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.