과점주주에 해당하는 것으로 보아 제2차납세의무자로 지정한 처분의 당부[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap48466 ( October 16, 2009)
early 208west2941 ( October 14, 2008)
The propriety of the disposition designated as the person liable for secondary tax payment, deeming it an oligopolistic stockholder
Since it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiffs were the formal shareholders who leased only the names of shareholders to the non-party company, a disposition to designate the secondary tax obligor is legitimate.
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. ① The defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the second term of March 4, 2008, for the second term of 2005, for the second term of value-added tax of 10,374,680 won, for the first term of 206, for the second term of 2006, for the second term of 2006, for the second term of 91,070 won, and for the second term of 206, for the second term of 2008, for the second term of 2008, for the second term of value-added tax of 136,670 won (894,190 won) and ② the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 205, for the second term of 207,340 won, for 206, for 205, for 205, for 3608, for 205, for 2506, for each of 204.6
The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable, and thus, it shall be quoted on the grounds of this judgment in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act: Provided, That "the defendant dismissed it on June 26, 2008" to be "the defendant adopted it on June 26, 2008 by re-assessment of the actual share ratio" to be "the defendant adopted it on June 26, 2008."
In the appellate court of this case, the plaintiffs merely lent the names of shareholders to the non-party company, but they are not the actual owners of the non-party company, and as they transferred the whole shares of the non-party company to SongA and BB prior to the tax base date of the disposition of this case, they are not responsible for the oligopolistic shareholders. Accordingly, the disposition of this case which reported the plaintiffs to be the oligopolistic shareholders of the non-party company was unlawful. However, the plaintiffs' grounds for appeal of this case are merely merely the contents of repeating the arguments made in the first instance court and criticize the court's decision rejecting them, and it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs as the formal shareholders who lent only the names of shareholders to the non-party company. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all of the plaintiffs' appeals.