Whether the disposition designated and notified as the person liable for secondary tax payment is legitimate.

Although the Plaintiff owned 49%, the Plaintiff’s husband is a person who actually controls the management of the company, and the Plaintiff does not fall under the secondary tax obligor.

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment of Investor)

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

On June 27, 2003, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of ○ Construction Company’s corporate tax for the business year 1998; (b) revoked each disposition of imposition of KRW 83,751,060 for the Plaintiff; (c) KRW 8,801,120 for the first-term value-added tax for the business year 1997; (d) KRW 714,420 for the second-term value-added tax for the business year 1997; (e) KRW 5,835,420 for the first-term value-added tax for the year 198; and (e) KRW 2,742

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of judgments of the first instance;

The reasons why a member states the instant case are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Consultations

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.