Seoul High Court 2009Nu37038 (Law No. 13, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2008J3430 ( December 23, 2008)

The second tax liability designation is legitimate because it falls under an oligopolistic stockholder.

(Abstract of the original decision) It is not sufficient to recognize that it was not a shareholder in the form as of the date of establishment of the tax liability, and as it constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder, the second tax liability designation is legitimate

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act

2011du4619 (Revocation of designation of person liable for secondary tax payment and disposition to impose a tax payment notice.

IsaA

○ Head of tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu37038 Decided January 13, 201

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the assertion on the grounds of appeal by the appellant constitutes Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Reference materials.

If the grounds of final appeal are not included in the grounds of final appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of trial without continuing the deliberation on the merits of the grounds of final appeal, and refers to the system of dismissal of final appeal by judgment without continuing the deliberation on the merits of the grounds of final appeal (see this case, e.g.,