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

Cheong-gu Office

1. The disposition of value-added tax on the attached Form 1 against the Plaintiffs of September 17, 2012 and October 23, 2012 by the head of Seodaemun Tax Office designating the Plaintiffs as the secondary taxpayer of DoB, Inc., as the secondary taxpayer of DoB, shall be revoked.

2. The disposition of imposition of value-added tax, business income tax, and retirement income tax in attached Form 2 against the Plaintiffs on January 21, 2013 by the head of the Defendant GG Tax Office designating the Plaintiffs as the secondary taxpayer of DBD, Inc. as the secondary taxpayer of DB, shall be revoked.

A. The DDR (hereinafter referred to as DD) of BB is a corporation established on January 4, 2007 for the purpose of sports facility business, etc., and the annual shareholders status of DD are as follows:

Change of shareholders of DD - See Decision 2

(b) Details of the disposition by the director of the tax office of Seodaemun;

1) From April 6, 2007 to OOE-dong 14-19, DDR closed its business on September 11, 2012, and at the time of its closure, DDR closed its business. At the time of its closure, DDR’s tax amount in arrears as follows:

Amount of delinquent taxes - see Decision 3

2) Accordingly, the head of Seodaemun Tax Office designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer and imposed the value-added tax on the amount in arrears of the EE store by deeming the Plaintiff as falling under the Plaintiff A, BB, and thisCC as the oligopolistic shareholder of the DD.

See Table 3 of the Court Decision

C. Details of the disposition by the head of the Defendant GG Tax Office

1) On September 15, 2007, DD operated the FF building 2nd floor of OG OG 509-1 FF building (hereinafter “GG store”) and discontinued GG u300 points around July 12, 2012, and the following delinquent taxes have occurred.

Amount of delinquent taxes - see Decision 4

2) On January 21, 2013, the head of the Defendant GG Tax Office: (a) designated Plaintiff A, BB, and thisCC as the oligopolistic shareholder of DD; and (b) imposed a disposition, such as value-added tax, on the delinquent amount of GG stores (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition,” both of the head of the Seodaemun Tax Office’s imposition of value-added tax and the disposition, as follows, on the delinquent amount of GG stores:

Amount of delinquent taxes - see Supreme Court Decision 4~5

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on February 28, 2013, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request on May 27, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 5 to 10 evidence (including all types of numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Plaintiff B, HaH and Han II agreed to operate the DD with a view to operating the DD and distributing profits to the ratio of shares. After the Plaintiff’s 84,00 shares (42%), HaB acquired 96,00 shares (48%), Ha II acquired 20,00 shares (10%).

B. In the event of the aggravation of the company’s operation, the Plaintiff B transferred the shares of HaH and HanJ to the Plaintiffs’ name due to concerns over the collection of claims. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ shares are merely title trust of shares issued by HaH and HanJ.

C. The secondary tax liability of a corporation shall be an oligopolistic shareholder with respect to not less than 51/100 of the total number of shares issued by the corporation. However, the Plaintiff EA and thisCC are not a beneficial shareholder of DD, and the Plaintiff B is a beneficial right holder of not less than 42%, who is a shareholder of not less than 51/100 of the total number of shares issued by the company, and is not an oligopolistic shareholder.

D. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff EA and thisCC are beneficial shareholders of DD is unlawful.

3. Relevant statutes;

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) PH reported on May 31, 201 with respect to DD shares 96,00 shares, and Han II reported on May 19, 201 with respect to shares 20,000 shares. < Amended by Act No. 10635, May 19, 2011>

2) On January 26, 201, 201 with respect to DD ① 84,000 shares, PH entered into a share transfer contract with the content that it transfers to the Plaintiff CC as an OOO on the total amount of January 26, 201, ② with respect to 12,00 shares, on January 26, 201, with the total amount of OOO as OO, and entered into a share transfer contract with the content that it transfers to Plaintiff B.

3) On January 26, 2011, Han II concluded a share transfer contract with respect to DD 20,000 shares, with the total amount set forth as OOO on a total amount set by OOO, which is transferred to the Plaintiff KR.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 5 and 6, purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

1) In light of the legislative purport and amendment process of Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is reasonable to view that all the persons falling under oligopolistic shareholders who actually exercise rights over 51/100 or more of the total number of stocks issued and outstanding among oligopolistic shareholders shall bear the secondary tax liability: Provided, That the scope of liability is limited within the scope of their shares; however, it does not require a single shareholder falling under an oligopolistic shareholder to actually exercise rights over 51/10 or more of the shares held; rather, it is sufficient that a shareholder is in a position to exercise shareholders' rights over the shares held as of the date of establishment of tax liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du983, Sept. 11, 2008). Meanwhile, whether a shareholder falls under an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39(2) of the Act should be determined by whether the tax authority is one member of the group of stocks owned and/or more than 51/100 of the total number of stocks issued and outstanding, and where the tax authority establishes it under the name of 2000 shareholders.

2) In light of the following circumstances that can be comprehensively seen by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the overall purport of the pleading as seen earlier, the statement of No. 4 and the testimony of No. 1 and No. 1 and No. 1 and No. 1 and evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs are insufficient to recognize the fact of title trust, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs is insufficient.

A) NH and Han II did not pay the price at the time of acquiring the DD’s shares, and did not bear any burden, such as repayment of DD’s obligations or provision of security.

B) PH and Han II did not have been involved in the distribution or operation of earnings from DD since the acquisition of DD stocks, and there was no friendly relationship between the Plaintiff B, HaH and Han II before the acquisition of DD stocks. Furthermore, as at the time of the transfer of the said stocks, DD was solely liable for a large amount of debt with no profits, so leH and Han II did not seem to have to have any need to hold shares of value-free value-free value-free value-free value-free during the process of title trust.

C) As stated in the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, Ha was unaware of the fact that the share transfer and takeover contract was prepared, and was testified in this court after the instant disposition was imposed. Nevertheless, no legal measure was taken such as filing a complaint by forging a private document, etc.

3) Therefore, the disposition of this case is not unlawful as alleged by the plaintiffs.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition.

.