In a number of third parties, the actual shareholders are all recognized as the plaintiff with respect to the shares owned under the name of all third parties.

According to the nominal shareholders, the actual owner of the shares issued by a corporation is recognized as the plaintiff, on the ground that the actual owner of the shares issued by the corporation, upon the plaintiff's request or at all, stated that

Article 39 (Secondary Tax Liability of Investors)

Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap7823 revocation of designation as a person liable for secondary tax payment

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

July 27, 2018

September 14, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant working in office of the Gu is designated as the secondary taxpayer of the value-added tax of KRW 0,00,00 for the first year of 2016, where the plaintiff was delinquent, **. The second taxpayer of the value-added tax of KRW 0,000,00 for the second time of 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "○○") and the plaintiff was designated as the second taxpayer for the payment of the value-added tax of KRW 1,00,000 for the second time of 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "○○") and*.* The notice of payment was given to the plaintiff *.* the plaintiff *. *. * the second taxpayer of the value-added tax of KRW 00,00,000 for the second time of 1, 2015

1. Details of the disposition;

A. P○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “P○○”) was established on 2015 for the development of software*.*.*.. of 2016 and closed on *.*.*.

B. The Defendant: (a) investigated the data (value-added tax) on the Plaintiff in October 2016; (b) deemed that f○○○○○○, ○○, ○○○, or the Plaintiff was a shareholder holding 100% of f.0% of f.0% of f.0; and (c) designated the Plaintiff as a secondary taxpayer for value-added tax of 1, 200,000,000 in arrears with f.0; (b) notified the Plaintiff on 1, 2016 f.*.*; (c) notified the Plaintiff on *. *. 2017; (d)* the Plaintiff was designated as a secondary taxpayer for value-added tax of 1, 200,000 won with f.0,000 won with f.1, 2015; and (d) notified the Plaintiff on f.10, 2017*** the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant notice for payment”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 8 evidence, Eul 1, 10, 12 and 14 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

▣ 국세기본법 제39조(출자자의 제2차 납세의무) 법인의 재산으로 그 법인에 부과되거나 그 법인이 납부할 국세ㆍ가산금과 체납처분비에 충당하여도 부족한 경우에는 그 국세의 납세의무 성립일 현재 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 자는 그 부족한 금액에 대하여 제2차 납세의무를 진다. 다만, 제2호에 따른 과점주주의 경우에는 그 부족한 금액을 그 법인의 발행주식 총수(의결권이 없는 주식은 제외한다. 이하 이 조에서 같다) 또는 출자총액으로 나눈 금액에 해당 과점주주가 실질적으로 권리를 행사하는 주식수(의결권이 없는 주식은 제외한다) 또는 출자액을 곱하여 산출한 금액을 한도로 한다.

2. A stockholder or one limited partner and a person prescribed by Presidential Decree from among his/her related parties, whose total amount of stocks held or investments exceeds 50/100 of the total number of outstanding stocks or investments of the relevant corporation and who actually exercise the rights thereto (hereinafter referred to as " oligopolistic stockholder").

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is not a 100% shareholder, but a ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, or ○○ Company is an actual shareholder.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the purport of Gap 5, 6, 9 evidence, Eul 2 through 7, and 10 evidence and the entire purport of pleadings, the fact that the plaintiff is a shareholder who actually owns 100% of f0% can be acknowledged. Therefore, the disposition of this case premised on this premise is justified [it is alleged that the plaintiff was defective in the presentation of the reason for disposition because it is stated "mortgagee" in the notice of payment, but the notice of payment clearly states the reason for the disposition as "the second taxpayer (mortgagee) of f00 in accordance with Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes." Thus, its assertion cannot be accepted].

1) The amount of 00 million won capital of ○○○○ was paid to the Plaintiff’s account as*.*.*. The source was the Plaintiff’s account. The Plaintiff’s paid-in capital is the Plaintiff’s account. * 20**. the day following the payment of capital*. * the Plaintiff has again been transferred to the Plaintiff’s account (the Plaintiff submitted a written contract for a loan for consumption of money (Evidence 15) with ○○○○, but it is difficult to believe in light of the fact that it was submitted after the closing of pleadings of this case**.).

2) The early ○○ prepared a confirmation letter stating that “○○ was not involved in the establishment of pl○○” (the equity in the principal’s name is the Plaintiff. *. *. 00 million deposited c. *. *. 1.0 billion deposited c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c.)”

3) On July 11, 2017, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 10,00 as criminal facts ******0,000,00,00 won received false purchase tax invoices from Ma○○○○○ in the office of Ma○○.***,**,**,00,000 won**.**.**.*.*.*. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. * in total *00,000 won********00,000 won? The summary order was issued ******0,000 won.

4. Conclusion

The claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.