Suwon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-67606 ( April 12, 2018)

No secondary tax liability exists for a shareholder in the name that is not a shareholder;

In light of the witness statement and each evidence, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed the actual shareholder of the instant corporation. Thus, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff designated as the secondary taxpayer is unlawful.

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2018Nu44618

AAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2017Guhap67606 Decided April 12, 2018

September 21, 2018

November 16, 2018

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s revocation of each tax imposition disposition on the Plaintiff on February 13, 2017, as described in the separate sheet, as set forth in the separate sheet.

section 3.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are as follows, because the reasons for this decision is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for partial dismissal:

It shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 2 pages 9 " February 17, 2017" shall be " February 13, 2017".

on 15 pages 15 "Evidence 1, 2, 3, and 2 and 15 of A" shall read "Evidence 1, 3, 11 of A,"

the statement and image of the evidence Nos. 2 and 15 shall be considered as the "statement and image".

○ 3. 8. “A’s 3 to 9, 13. The testimony of the witness JeongB”

The statements in the evidence 9, 12, and 13, and the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial by the dueB shall be considered as "the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial."

○ 3rd 16th 17th 17th 17th 17th 200

There is an influence of enemy."

○ 4, 7, 8 parallels are as follows.

“JB was declared bankrupt on February 22, 2013 and was granted immunity on October 1, 2013.

AB is declared bankrupt on September 24, 2013 by the court of first instance and the plaintiff is declared bankrupt on September 24, 2013.

ownership of shares in the name of the company and the incorporation of the company of this case, but it did not have any choice but

The Plaintiff stated to the effect that he is the actual owner of the company and is only an employee.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the ground of its reasoning. The judgment of the court of first instance is the same as this conclusion.

Since the defendant's appeal is justifiable, it is dismissed as it is without merit.