2. Propriety of designation of secondary tax liability

Even if the plaintiff did not directly participate in the management of the non-party company, it constitutes a person who actually exercises the rights to more than 51 percent of the total amount of shares issued by the corporation

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment of Contributors)

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part that the Defendant designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer and sought revocation of the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of April 30, 2003, value-added tax 1,688,440 won for the second period of April 30, 200, value-added tax for the second period of 200, value-added tax for the second period of 12,774,200, value-added tax for the first period of 2001, value-added tax 2,685,040 won for the first period of 201, value-added tax for the second period of 201, value-added tax for 7,307,

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The defendant designated the plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer for the first term of 200 on April 30, 200, the first term value-added tax of 1,688,440 won, the second term value-added tax of 200 on April 30, 200, the second term value-added tax of 200, the first term value-added tax of 2,685,040 won, the second term value-added tax of 201 on December 18, 2001, and the second term value-added tax of 7,307,240 won, and the second term value-added tax of 2,713,750 won on December 18, 2004 respectively are revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) ○○○○○○○○-dong 000-0, 000, 000 (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”);

A. The Defendant, on April 30, 2003, was registered as holding 50% of the equity shares of the non-party company in accordance with the statement on changes in stocks, etc. at the time of establishment of each tax liability, and notified the non-party company to pay the amount of delinquent taxes in arrears amounting to 5,822,90 won ( = 111,645,960 won *50%).

B. After that, the Defendant further confirmed the fact that the non-party company failed to pay taxes, such as the attached list of the second delinquent tax amount, and notified the non-party company to pay taxes on December 18, 2004 on the 3,101,680 won (=6,230,420 won *50%).

C. On February 22, 2005, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above notice of payment and raised an objection to the Defendant, but was dismissed on March 29, 2005, and requested a trial to the National Tax Tribunal on May 30, 2005.

D. On August 31, 2006, the National Tax Tribunal rendered a rejection ruling on the defendant's notice of payment on April 30, 2003 on the ground that the plaintiff did not go through legitimate pre-trial procedure, among the defendant's notice of payment on December 18, 2004, 102,120 won and additional dues on the wage and salary income tax withheld in April 2003, 102,120 won and additional dues, 5,100 won and additional dues for the wage and salary income tax withheld in May 203, 203, and 87,700 won and additional dues for the wage and salary income tax from June 303, 203, and 4,380 won for the remainder of the plaintiff's claims, respectively.

E. On the other hand, on September 18, 2006, the defendant revoked the designation of the secondary taxpayer with respect to the portion of the first-term value-added tax for 2002 and the second-term value-added tax for 2002, the second-term wage and salary income tax for 2002, the second-time wage and salary tax for 2003, and the wage and salary tax for 4,5,603, the second-time wage and salary tax for 2003, and notified the plaintiff of the revocation of the payment notice (hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff disputing, the second-time taxpayer and the notice of payment for 203 April 20, the second taxpayer due to the imposition of value-added tax for the non-party company for 200, and the second-time tax for the non-party company for 209, the defendant imposed value-added tax for the non-party company for 203.12.28, 2003"

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 5, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 5, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on imposition of the first disposition

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

○ Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7008 of Dec. 30, 2003) (Relationship with other Acts)

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 18 (1) (main sentence), (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, any administrative litigation against any illegal disposition as prescribed in Article 55 shall not be instituted without going through a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon under this Act.

○ Article 61 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [Period of Request]

(1) Any person shall file an examination request within ninety days from the date (when a disposition notice is received, the date of its receipt) on which he becomes aware of the relevant disposition.

○ Article 66 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [Objection]

(6) The provisions of Articles 61 (1), (3) and (4), 62 (2), 63, the proviso to Article 64 (1), and Articles 64 (2), 65 and 65-2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to raising any objection: Provided, That the term "90 days" in Article 65 (2) shall be read as "30 days".

B. Determination on the legality of a lawsuit

Unlike the general administrative litigation, an administrative litigation seeking a cancellation of a disposition imposing national taxes cannot be filed without going through an administrative appeal (Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). An objection may be filed against a disposition agency prior to the administrative appeal, but such objection shall also be filed within 90 days from the date when the relevant disposition is known (Articles 6(6) and 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

However, the plaintiff himself argues that the first disposition was known about November 2003, and that he raised an objection against the defendant who is the disposal agency on February 22, 2005 after the elapse of 90 days thereafter, and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on March 29, 2005, and filed an appeal on May 30, 2005. However, the fact that he received the dismissal ruling on August 31, 2006 on the ground that he did not go through legitimate pre-trial procedure, as seen above, the part seeking revocation of the first disposition among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

3. Judgment on the second disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is registered only in the name of the non-party company as a shareholder of the non-party company, and in fact there is no fact that the non-party company holds shares or has participated in the management of the non-party company, so the

(b) Related statutes;

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7008 of Dec. 30, 2003) / [Secondary Liability for Tax Payment by Investor]

(1) Where the property of a corporation (excluding a corporation which has listed stocks on the Korea Stock Exchange) is insufficient to cover the national taxes and additional dues imposed on or to be paid by such corporation, and the expenses for disposition on default, any person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs as of the date on which the liability to pay national taxes is established shall be subject to secondary tax liability for such shortage: Provided, That in the case of oligopolistic stockholders under subparagraph 2, it shall be limited to the amount calculated by multiplying the amount calculated by dividing the shortage by the total number of stocks issued by the corporation (excluding non-voting stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or total amount of investment, by the number of oligopolistic stockholders (excluding non-voting stocks) or amount of investment (in the case of oligopolistic stockholders under subparagraph

1. General partners;

2. An oligopolistic stockholder who falls under any of the following items:

(a) A person who exercises a substantial right over the stocks or investment shares in excess of 51/100 of the total number of issued stocks or total investments of the relevant corporation;

(b) An honorary chairperson, chairperson, president, vice president, senior managing director, managing director, director, or any other person who actually controls the management of the corporation, notwithstanding the title thereof;

(c) The spouse (including the person in de facto marital relations) of the persons under items (a) and (b) and the lineal ascendants and descendants sharing their living

(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1) 2, the term “excess stockholder” means a person who is a relative or has other special relations with a stockholder or partner with limited liability as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and whose total amount of stocks owned or investment is not less than 51/100 of the total number of stocks issued or total amount of investment of

C. Determination

If Gap evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 1-2, and Eul evidence No. 3 show the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff was the spouse of Jung-○ at the time of December 31, 1999, which was the date when the liability for the tax of the second term value-added tax was established for the non-party company's second term portion of the non-party company's 199, which was the basis of the second imposition disposition. The non-party company's representative director at the time of December 31, 199, and it can be recognized that the non-party company stated 50% of the shares of the non-party company as the plaintiff's own shares and 50% of the remaining 50% of the shares of the non-party company's shares on the statement of change in the shares, etc. submitted by the non-party company to the defendant, and it is insufficient to find that the plaintiff's name was stolen merely by the statement of evidence No. 1 and No. 3.

If so, the second disposition that the defendant regarded the plaintiff as an oligopolistic stockholder of the non-party company is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion disputing this is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part seeking revocation of the first disposition among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and all of it is dismissed, and the part seeking revocation of the second disposition is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(Attached Form)

List of the first delinquent tax amount;

Reversion

Items of Taxation

Date of establishment of tax liability

Amount of delinquent tax (unit: source)

Principal Tax

Additional Dues

guidance.

1, 200

Value-added Tax

June 30, 2006

3,376,800

1,384,440

4,761,240

200 No. 2

Value-added Tax

December 31, 2000

25,548,450

7,715,600

3,264,050

1, 2001

Value-added Tax

on June 30, 2001

5,370,090

1,461,060

6,831,150

201

Value-added Tax

December 31, 2001

14,614,500

3,096,010

17,710,510

1, 2002

Value-added Tax

June 30, 2002

15,285,450

2,141,710

17,427,160

Second 2002

Value-added Tax

December 31, 2002

28,867,430

2,129,820

30,997,250

Sub-committees

83,062,720

17,928,640

100,991,360

August 2002

Earned income tax

August 31, 2002

195,890

9,790

205,680

September 2002

Earned income tax

September 30, 2002

223,300

11,160

234,460

December 2002

Earned income tax

December 31, 2002

204,250

10,210

214,460

Sub-committees

623,440

31,160

654,600

Total

93,686,160

17,959,800

111,645,960

List of the second delinquent tax amount

Reversion

Items of Taxation

Date of establishment of tax liability

Amount of delinquent tax (unit: source)

Principal Tax

Additional Dues

guidance.

Second Period of 1999

Value-added Tax

December 31, 1999

5,427,500

162,820

5,590,320

Sub-committees

5,427,500

162,820

5,590,320

April 2003

Earned income tax

April 30, 2003

204,250

10,210

214,460

May 2003

Earned income tax

May 31, 2003

204,250

10,210

214,460

June 2003

Earned income tax

on June 30, 2003

175,410

8,770

184,180

Sub-committees

583,910

29,190

613,100

Total

6,011,410

192,010

6,203,420