Whether a secondary taxpayer is a secondary taxpayer

The second tax liability is illegal to impose the secondary tax liability on the premise that it is a real shareholder, even if it is not illegal, it is merely a loan of the Plaintiff’s name, but is not a beneficial shareholder of the instant shares.

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment of Contributors)

1. The Defendant’s taxation disposition on July 16, 2004, as stated in the [Attachment] imposed by the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 8, 1998, ○○○ Communications Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) is a corporation established for the purpose of communications construction business, etc., and was in arrears with national taxes and additional dues as stated in attached Form 32,130 shares (hereinafter referred to as “the shares of this case”) out of the total number of 51,00 shares issued by the non-party company. The defendant designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer pursuant to Article 39(1)2 (a) of the Framework Act on National Taxes on the ground that the plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder who holds 32,130 shares (hereinafter referred to as “the shares of this case”) equivalent to 63% of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company, and issued the disposition of this case on July 16, 2004, which imposes national taxes and additional dues such as stated in attached Form 39(1)2 (a) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. [Grounds for recognition]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, as an employee of the non-party company, was registered as a shareholder of the instant shares by taking advantage of his name by gambling ○○, and even if not, it was merely a loan of the Plaintiff’s name, but is not a beneficial shareholder of the instant shares, the instant disposition for which the Plaintiff imposed secondary tax liability on the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff is a substantial shareholder of the instant shares.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the name of the plaintiff was stolen

The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that Park○-○ was registered in the register of shareholders by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, in light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and Park○-○ and the period of holding shares, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff knew that the instant shares were registered in the register of shareholders under one’s own name. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is a borrowed-name shareholder

In light of the above facts, ○○○○○○○○○○ Company’s name, ○○○○○○○○○○○ Company’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company’s 7th day to July 16, 204, the Plaintiff entered the instant shares in the name of Nonparty 1’s 4-3, A5 through 7, A18-1 through 10, and the overall purport of the testimony of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s 5th day to the effect that the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company’s 6th day to the effect that the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company’s 5th day to the effect that the Plaintiff had been listed in the name of Nonparty 1’s ○○○○○ Company’s 6th day to the effect that it had been listed in the name of 195th day.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.