The disposition that deemed the plaintiff as the oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company and deemed the second tax liability is legitimate.

All of the dispositions of this case that the Plaintiff constituted an oligopolistic stockholder under the Framework Act on National Taxes on the grounds of the statement on changes in stocks, etc. of the nonparty company.

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Guhap16888 Disposition of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax, etc.

Park AA

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

October 21, 2014

November 18, 2014

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

On November 20, 2012, the Defendant revoked each taxation disposition stated in the list (attached Form 1) against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. OOE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “OOE”) was established on January 15, 199 as a company established on January 15, 199 for the purpose of planning, reproduction, printing, etc. of publications as a business; the total number of issued stocks was 10,000 shares (one share amount of 5,000 won), 50,000 capital; around December 31, 2002, 12,000 shares (one share amount of 5,000 won per share); thereafter, the total number of issued stocks was 22,00 shares, 110,000 capital stock amount of 60,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “instant issued shares”); and thereafter, the new shares became 10,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “instant issued shares”).

B. According to the statement on the changes in stocks, etc. of the non-party company, from among the 10,000 shares issued above, gamblingB (the plaintiff's birth) held 4,50 shares (45%) among the 10,00 shares issued above, the plaintiff held 3,50 shares (35%), 1,000 shares (10%), 50 shares (5%), 50 shares (5%), and 500 shares (5%) respectively at the time of the incorporation of the non-party company, and 22,00 shares issued above 9,90 shares (45%), and 7,700 shares (35%), and 4,400 shares (22%) are held respectively.

C. On July 4, 2011, the non-party company was decided to discontinue the rehabilitation procedures by the above court on October 24, 201, and was voluntarily closed by the Defendant on October 30, 2012.

D. The defendant held that the non-party company is not able to pay delinquent taxes with its own property, and the non-party company is an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company (which was amended by Act No. 11845 of May 28, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "former Framework Act on National Taxes") under Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11845 of May 28, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "former Framework Act on National Taxes") and thus, on November 21, 2012, the non-party company designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer of the non-party company as the taxpayer of the non-party company and stated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer of the above shares [Attachment 2] list "the second amount of tax liability for the plaintiff" in the list of 203,782,420 as the date of the second disposition, the plaintiff's notice of claim 201.

E. The Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay KRW 71,998,280, which was partially added after the payment deadline, as shown in the Plaintiff’s Schedule 1, Dec. 20, 2012, when the Plaintiff did not pay the national tax by the payment deadline.

F. Upon receipt of an objection, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination of the instant disposition with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on June 22, 2013, but was dismissed on September 25, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 through 10, Gap evidence 2, 3, evidence 10-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 5-1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In full view of the fact that the non-party company was established by the Plaintiff’s investment in ParkB-B, the Plaintiff did not consent to the payment of shares at the time of its establishment or to the registration of the shareholder registry, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff consented to the payment of shares at the time of its establishment, the Plaintiff did not work as an employee of the non-party company, nor received wages or dividends, and there was no notice of convening the shareholders registry, and the Plaintiff did not appear to have been given the notice of the convocation of the shareholders registry, even if the Plaintiff was not a shareholder of the non-party company after the issuance of new shares, and the Plaintiff did not appear to have been a shareholder in the statement of changes in shares until 2012, the disposition of this case that deemed that

2) Even if the Plaintiff is indicated as a shareholder on the statement of changes in stocks, etc. after the incorporation of the non-party company, it is apparent that the Plaintiff was not a shareholder at the time of resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of the non-party company on January 26, 2010, and thus, there is no secondary tax liability for the tax amount in arrears

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment 3] The entry is as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 39 subparag. 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a member of a group of stockholders who actually exercises the rights to shares exceeding 50% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of a corporation shall be deemed an oligopolistic shareholder to be in a position of de facto controlling the company's management through the exercise of voting rights at a general meeting of shareholders according to the number of shares held. Thus, the exercise of the rights to shares exceeding 50% under the above provision does not necessarily require the actual exercise of shareholder rights, and it shall be deemed that the exercise of shareholder rights to the shares held as of the date when the national tax liability is established is adequate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du8418, Oct. 15, 2004; 2001Du5354, Jul. 8, 2003). Meanwhile, where a shareholder under Article 39 subparag. 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes appears to have been held in a position of de facto controlling the company's management through the list or the list of shares.

2) According to the statement on the change in stocks, etc. of the non-party company, the non-party company continued to hold shares exceeding 50/100 of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company (8,000 shares (=3,500 shares + 4,500 shares + 1,000 shares + 22,00 shares after the non-party company was established on January 15, 199 and around October 31, 2002 after the non-party company was closed down on October 30, 2012 through the capital increase for new shares of this case, together with ParkB, Park In-CC, and Park In-CC, the non-party company continued to hold shares exceeding 50/10 of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company at the time of its establishment (= Plaintiff 3,500 shares + 4,700 shares after the capital increase for new shares of this case + Plaintiff 7,900 shares + 9,900 shares

그런데 위 주식등변동상황명세서에도 불구하고 원고에게 실은 주주명의를 도용당하였거나 실질소유주의 명의가 아닌 차명으로 등재되었다는 등의 사정이 있어 원고가 소외 회사의 주주에 해당하지 않는다고 볼 수 있는지에 관하여 보면, 갑 제6호증의 1, 2, 3, 갑 제7호증의 1, 2, 갑 제11, 12호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 소외 회사는 2010. 1. 26. 주주 3인 중 박CC(소유주식수 11,500주), 박BB(소유주식수7,500주)은 출석하고 이FF(소유주식수 3,000주)은 불출석한 가운데 임시주주총회를 개최하여 이사 노GG을 해임하는 결의를 하였다며 그와 같은 내용이 기재된 주주명부(갑 제6호증의 1), 진술서(갑 제6호증의 2), 회의록(갑 제6호증의 3) 등에 관하여 2010. 1. 27. 공증인가 법무법인 OO으로부터 2010년 제250호로 인증받은 사실, 소외 회사는 2011. 6. 13. 위 주주 3인이 전원 출석한 가운에 임시주주총회를 개최하여 사내이사로 박BB, 이상태, 이FF을, 감사로 박CC을 각 선출하는 결의를 하였다며 그와 같은 내용이 기재된 주주명부(갑 제7호증의 2), 회의록(갑 제7호증의 1) 등에 관하여 2011. 6. 15. 공증인가 법무법인 OOO로부터 2011년 제1984호로 인증받은 사실, 소외 회사에 대한 의정부지방법원 2011회합00호 회생사건에서 관리인으로 선임된 박BB이 2011. 9. 30. 주식ㆍ출자지분 명세서에 소외 회사의 주주를 박CC(소유주식수 11,500주), 박BB(소유주식수 7,500주), 이FF(소유주식수 3,000주)이라고 기재하여 위 법원에 제출한 사실 등을 인정할 수는 있으나, 한편 위 각 증거 및 갑 제15호증의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고는 법인등기부상 소외 회사 설립 당시인 1999. 1. 15. 이사로 취임하였다가 2002. 1. 15. 퇴임하였고, 다시 2002. 10. 1. 취임한 후 2005. 10. 1. 퇴임하는 등 소외 회사의 설립 및 이 사건 유상증자 실시 당시 이사로 등재되어 있었던 점, ② 소외 회사가 원고에게 2007. 11. 및 같은 해 12. 급여 710,000원씩을 지급되었다는 내역이 존재하는 점, ③ 위 각 임시총회 당시 작성된 주주명부에 의하면 박CC은 11,500주, 박BB은 7,500주, 이FF은 3,000주를 각 보유하고 있다고 기재되어 있으나, 이들이 언제, 누구로부터, 어떤 경위로 위와 같은 수의 주식을 보유하게 되었는지에 관한 자료가 없는 점, ④ 원고는 주식등변동상황명세서상 원고가 보유하고 있는 주식에 대한 대금을 납입한 사실이 없다며 박BB 명의의 통장내역(갑 제4호증), 소외 회사 명의의 기업자유예금 거래명세표(갑 제9호증)을 제출하였으나, 위 증거들에 의하더라도 원고 회사 설립 당시인 1999. 1. 16. 박BB 명의의 은행계좌에 5,000만 원이 대체를 원인으로 입금되었다가 같은 날 출금되었고, 이 사건 유상증자 당시인 2002. 12. 31. 소외 회사 명의의 은행게좌에서 6,000만 원이 대체를 원인으로 입금되었다가 같은 날 위 금액을 포함한 60,006,344원이 출금된 사실만 인정되고, 위 각 금원의 자금출처나 소유관계, 그 처분과정 등에 관하여는 이를 인정할 증거가 없는 점, ⑤ 또한 원고는 소외 회사의 실질적 소유자인 박BB이유상증자를 실시하면서 주주로 남길 원하지 않았던 형식상 주주였던 원고, 이DD, 최EE 대신 지인인 이FF을 소외 회사의 형식상 주주로 등록하는 한편 박BB 자신과 배우자 박CC의 주식비율로 조정하였다고 주장하나, 이를 인정할 자료가 없는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 앞서 본 사실 및 갑 제4, 5, 8, 9호증, 갑 제13호증의 1, 갑 제14호증의 1 내지 5, 갑 제16호증의 1의 각 기재만으로는 원고가 단지 명의상 주주라는 점을 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

Therefore, the disposition of this case which the Plaintiff, based on the statement of changes in stocks, etc. of the non-party company, constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39 subparag. 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, cannot be deemed unlawful. Since the Plaintiff still cannot be deemed excluded from the oligopolistic shareholder with the secondary tax liability after January 26, 2010, the Plaintiff’s assertion otherwise asserted is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.