The legitimacy of the assertion that the designation of the secondary taxpayer is improper by lending only the name.

Although it is alleged that only the name was lent and no general partner was engaged in business, but a judicial compromise was established, such circumstance alone alone cannot be deemed null and void as the instant taxation disposition has a significant and apparent defect.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 47,181,160 won with 5% interest per annum from December 12, 2006 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 2, 1995, the Defendant was registered as a general partner of the above president’s registry from February 9, 1005 on the ground that the Defendant acquired the shares of Lee Won-won, a representative member of the ○○○○ Company, from February 2, 1995.

B. The defendant asserted that the ○○○○○○○ Company was registered in the register of the above company as the representative director or representative member of the above company upon the request of the ○○○○ Company, and that the ○○○○ Company was registered in the register of the above company, and that the ○○○○○○ Company was actually a representative director or representative director of the above company, and that the ○○○○○○ was a representative director or representative director of the above company, and that the ○○○○ was a representative director or representative director of the above company, and that the ○○○○ was a representative director or representative director of the above company, and that the ○○○○○ Company was a representative director or representative member of the above company, and that the ○○○○○○○ Company was established in the name of the ○○○○ Company, from November 29, 2008 to 1251, 2001 to 198, and that the ○○○○ Company’s name was the representative director of the above company.

C. Meanwhile, as the head office of Echeon-si ○○○-si 104-O was delinquent in value-added tax, corporate tax, etc., the head office of Echeon-si ○○-si ○○○○-si 104-O under the Defendant’s head office deemed the Plaintiff as a person falling under Article 39(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (i.e., an “unlimited liability member”), and designated the Plaintiff as a secondary taxpayer for KRW 47,181,160 during the period for which the Plaintiff was registered as a general partner of the above ○○-si ○○○-si ○○○-si ○○, and the Plaintiff paid the above money on December 11, 206.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 11, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

Although the Plaintiff had the same facts as stated in Paragraph 1-A, the Plaintiff merely lent its name upon the request of No. 1-2, the actual operator of the ○○○○ Company, and did not actually engage in the business as a general partner of the said ○○ Company. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is not a “unlimited partner of the said unlimited partnership company” in the Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 2008Gahap1251, which led to the establishment of a judicial compromise as above, and the Plaintiff is not a “unlimited partner of the said unlimited partnership company.” Therefore, the instant taxation disposition that the Plaintiff designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer is unlawful and obvious, and thus, the Plaintiff claims the refund of the paid amount.

Therefore, as long as there exists an open fact, such as the statement 1-A (A) in this case, there is no substantial loan of the name only by the request of No. 1, the actual operator of ○○○ Company, as alleged by the Plaintiff, to the general partner of the above ○○ Company, and accordingly, even if a judicial compromise was established in the case No. 2008Gahap1251, Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch Branch 2008Gahap1251, such circumstance alone does not necessarily mean that the pertinent tax disposition is null and void as it has a significant and obvious defect, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion based on this premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.