Cancellation of imposition, such as value-added tax and traffic tax

Since the claimant regards the amount received at the selling place as the price for the goods rather than the fee for production, it is subject to value-added tax and traffic tax, and whether it is an oligopolistic stockholder can not be determined that it is not an oligopolistic stockholder even if there is no specific participation in the company management.

Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 39 (Secondary Tax Liability of Investors)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 40,821,950 on March 18, 2005 against the Plaintiff on December 12, 2004, of KRW 349,242,140 on December 204, of occasional traffic tax of KRW 112,213,120 on December 2004, of KRW 928,310 on December 12, 2004, of KRW 658,680 on interim prepayment corporate tax of KRW 112,213,120 on December 204, is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Since June 5, 2003, the OOOO registered the incorporation of KRW 50,00,000 capital, and operated solvents, chemical medicine sales business, paint, waterproof agents, dilution retail business, etc. on October 28, 2003, the OOOOO discontinued business on March 15, 2005, and discontinued its business due to its business progress on March 18, 2005 (including value-added tax of KRW 272,146,40 as of March 18, 2005, value-added tax of KRW 272,328,281,070 as of December 12, 2004, traffic tax of KRW 748,087,520 as of December 28, 2004, additional tax of KRW 308,300 as of December 18, 2004, including additional tax of KRW 308,384,2004.

B. The Defendant: (i) owned 100% of the shares of OOO (Plaintiff 15%, KimO 70%, and 15% of Kim △△△△ 15%) with the Plaintiff’s specially related persons (i.e., Nonparty 2, 15%, Kim 70%, and 205% of the shares of OOO; (ii) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s above delinquent national taxes of OOO were subject to secondary taxation under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7930, Apr. 28, 2006; hereinafter the “Framework Act”). (iii) on March 18, 2005, the Plaintiff was subject to imposition of KRW 250, X21,950 (15%) on December 12, 2004, KRW 205, KRW 305, KRW 2014, KRW 2815,2014).

Facts that do not have any ground for recognition. Each entry in Gap 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the luxs produced by OOOO are not similar gasolines but fuel additives, they are not subject to traffic tax, it is not subject to traffic tax, and the OOO merely received 35 won per △△△△△△△△△△△△△, and entrusted the production of luxs, the traffic tax and value-added tax should be imposed on the △△△△△△△△△△△△△.

(2) The entity that actually established and operated the OOOO was Nonparty 00, and the entity that borrowed the name of OO and owned 70% shares of OOOO as the representative director and the 70% shares of OOOO. The Plaintiff and △△△△△△△ was merely the entity that lent the name at the request of the above OOO and owned the 15% shares of each corporation as the shareholder that held the 15% shares. As such, the OO, the Plaintiff, and △△△△△△△ was neither the actual shareholder of the OOOO, nor the shareholder, nor the actual shareholder, nor the OOO was in fact controlled the management of the OOO. Thus, the Plaintiff was not the oligopolistic shareholder of the OOOO, but the Plaintiff did not have secondary taxpayer for the OOO's national tax in arrears, and thus, the instant disposition of imposition imposed on the Plaintiff by deeming the secondary taxpayer for the OO's national tax in arrears.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the first argument

According to the evidence evidence No. 8 B, since Recording is recognized as constituting pseudo petroleum products that are subject to traffic tax, the plaintiff's assertion that it is not subject to traffic tax is not accepted. Meanwhile, the plaintiff asserted that OOOO was to receive 35 won per liter from △△△△△△△△, and that it was only to entrusted production, but there is no other evidence to prove that each of the above statements No. 4-1 and No. 2 did not trust the following facts. Rather, according to the evidence No. 8, OOOO purchased raw materials under its responsibility and delivered 3,808,000 won to the above account No. 300,000,000 won to 30,000,0000 won to 30,0000,0000 won to 30,0000,0000 won to 40,0000,0000 won to 30,000,0000 O-4,000.

(2) Judgment on the second argument

(A) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39(1)2 and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

A majority of whether it falls under an oligopolistic stockholder under Article 39 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Determination based on whether a group of stock ownership is a member of the group, and even if there is no fact involved in the management of the company, it cannot be determined that it is not an oligopolistic shareholder. The fact of stock ownership is sufficient to prove it by the tax authority through the data such as the list of stockholders, the statement of stock transfer or the register of corporate register, etc. However, even if it appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, if there are circumstances, such as that the actual shareholder was stolen or registered in the name other than the real shareholder, the actual shareholder cannot be deemed to be a shareholder only in the name of the company, but the nominal shareholder who asserts that he is not a shareholder should prove that he is not a shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1

"그런데 갑1호증, 을1호증, 을3 내지 5호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 주식회사 OOOOO의 대표이사 김OO가 법인설립신고 및 사업자등록신청을 하면서 제출한 주주명부상 주식소유비율이 김OO 70%, 원고 15%, 김△△ 15%이고 그 후로도 주식소유비율에 변동이 없는 사실, 주식회사 OOOOO의 법인등기부상 설립일이 2003.6. 5.부터 2003. 8. 17.까지는 김OO 1인이 이사로 등재되어 있다가 2003. 8. 18.부터는 김OO가 대표이사로, 원고 및 김△△가 각 이사로 각 등재되어 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 주식회사 OOOOO의 위 체납국세의 납세의무 성립일 현재 김OO는 주식회사 OOOOO의 대표이사로서 주식의 70%를, 원고 및 김OO는 주식회사 OOOOO의 이사로서 주식의 15%씩을 각 소유하고 있었던 것으로 보이고, 이와 같이 주주명부나 법인별 주주현황 조회 또는 법인등기부등본 등 자료에 의하여 주식의 소유사실이 입증된 이상 원고의 주장과 같이 김OO, 원고, 김△△가 주식회사 OOOOO의 실제 주주가 아니라 명목상 주주에 불과하다는 사정은 원고가 입증하여야 할 것인데, 이러한 원고의 주장에 부합하는 듯 한 갑8.9호증의 각 1의 각 기재는 ① 상법 제383조 제1항은 이사는 3인 이상이어야 한다. 다만, 자본의 총액이 5억원 미만인 회사는 1인 또는 2인으로 할 수 있다고 규정하고 있고, 주식회사 OOOOO의 정관(을6호증의 2) 제15조도 당 회사는 1인 이상의 이사와 1인 이상의 감사를 둔다.' 고 되어 있는바, 주식회사 OOOOO은 자본총액이 5,000만원으로서 5억원 미만인 회사이므로 이사의 수를 1인 또는 2인으로 할 수 있어 이미 이사로 등재되어 있던 김OO 이외에 굳이 명목상의 이사로 원고 및 김△△를 등재하여 이사 3인을 두어야 할 필요성이 있지는 않았던 것으로 보이는 점(이사가 김OO 혼자여서 모양새가 좋지 않아 모양새를 갖추려는 것이었다는 원고의 주장만으로는 이를 설명하기 부족하다) ② 원고 및 김△△가 소유하고 있는 것으로 되어 있는 주식 15%의 대금은 750만원에 불과하여 원고 및 김△△가 이를 실제로 출자하는 것이 그리 어렵지는 않았을 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 소외 조OO은 자신이 주식회사 OOOOO의 납입자본금 5,000만원을 타인으로부터 빌려 납부하였다고 하면서도 구체적으로 이를 누구로부터 빌린 것인지는 밝히지 못하고 있는 점, ④ 원고의 주장에 의하더라도 백OO는 김OO에게 김OO를 대표이사로 하여 법인을 설립하여 주면 평생을 같이 회사를 운영하겠다는 취지로 말하였다는 것으로서 단순히 명의만을 빌리는 것은 아니었던 것으로 보여지는 점 등의 사정에 비추어 이를 그대로 믿기 어렵고, 갑6, 7호증, 갑10호증의 1의 각 기재만으로는 이를 인정하기 부족하여 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장 또한 받아들일 수 없고, 따라서 6촌 이내의 부계혈족의 친족으로서 특수관계에 있는 원고와 김OO 및 김△△의 주식소유비율을 합하면 100% 지분율로서 원고는 특수관계에 있는 김OO, 김△△와 함께 주식회사 OOOOO의 주식 100%를 소유하고 있는 과점주주(국세기본법 제39조 제2항, 같은 법 시행령 제20조 제1호)에 해당한다고 할 것이다.", "(나) 원고가 국세기본법 제39조 베1항 제2호 각목 소정의 제2차 납세의무자' 에 해당하는지 여부", "국세기본법 제39조 제1항 제2호 각목은, 과점주주 중 발행주식총수 또는 출자총액의 100분의 51 이상의 주식 또는 출자지분에 관한 권리를 실질적으로 행사하는 자' (가목), 법인의 경영을 사실상 지배하는 자' (나목). 가목 및 나목에 규정하는 자의 배우자 및 그와 생계를 같이 하는 직계존비속' (다목)에 해당하는 자는 제2차 납세의무를 진다고 규정하고 있고, 위 가목에서 말하는 51% 이상의 주식에 관한 권리행사는 반드시 현실적으로 주주권을 행사한 실적이 있어야 할 것을 요구하는 것은 아니고 법인의 납세의무 성립일 현재 소유하고 있는 주식에 관하여 주주권을 행사할 수 있는 지위에 있으면 족한 것인바, 원고의 부 김OO가 주식회사 OOOOO의 위 각 체납국세의 납세의무 성립일 현재 주식회사 OOOOO의 대표이사로서 주식의 70%를 소유하고 있던 자임은 앞서 본 것과 같으므로 김OO는 소유주식 70%에 관한 주주권을 행사 할 수 있는 지위에 있는 자로서 위 가목의 발행주식총수 또는 출자총액의 100분의 51이상의 주식 또는 출자지분에 관한 권리를 실질적으로 행사하는 자' 에 해당한다고 할 것이고, 을2호증의 기재에 의하면 원고는 주식회사 OOOOO의 설립일 이전부터 현재까지 부 김OO와 같은 서울 OO구 OO동 000-00에 주소를 두고 있는 사실을 알 수 있어 원고는 위 가목에 해당하는 김OO와 생계를 같이 하는 직계비속으로서 위 다목 소정의 제2차 납세의무자에 해당한다고 할 것이므로, 원고를 주식회사 OOOOO의 위 체납국세에 대한 제2차 납세의무자로 보아 부과한 이 사건 부과처분은 적법하다.",3. 결론

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

public official law, order of law,

1. Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7930 of April 28, 2006)

Article 21 (Establishment Date of Liability for Tax Payment)

(1) A liability to pay national taxes shall accrue at the following times:

7. For value-added taxes, when a taxable period is terminated: Provided, That for imported goods, when an import declaration is filed with the head of customhouse;

8. In cases of the special consumption tax, liquor tax, or traffic tax, when taxable goods are taken out of the manufacturing place, sold at the selling place, or admitted to the taxable place or entertainment and eating at the taxable entertainment place: Provided, That in cases of imported goods, when an import declaration is

10-3. For an education tax:

(a) For an education tax imposed on the national tax, when the national tax liability comes into existence;

Article 39 (Secondary Liability to Pay Taxes by Investors)

(1) Where the property of a corporation (excluding a corporation which has listed stocks on the securities market under Article 2 (1) of the Korea Securities and Futures Exchange Act) is insufficient to cover the national taxes, additional dues, and disposition fees for arrears that are imposed on or to be paid by such corporation, any of the following persons as of the date on which the liability to pay national taxes is established shall assume secondary tax liability for such shortage: Provided, That in the case of oligopolistic stockholders under subparagraph 2, the limit of the amount calculated by multiplying the amount obtained by dividing the shortage by the total number of stocks issued (excluding non-voting stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or total amount of investment of such corporation by the number of oligopolistic stockholders owned (excluding non-voting stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or investment amount (in

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 issued stocks or total investments of the relevant corporation;

(b) An honorary chairperson, president, vice president, senior executive director, executive director, director, or any other person who actually controls the operation 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 the total sum of stocks owned or investment is 51/100 or more of the total number of stocks issued or investment of the juristic person

2. Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act;

The term “relatives and other persons having special relations as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in Article 39 (2) of the Act means those who fall under any of the following subparagraphs: Provided, That in case where a stockholder or a partner with limited liability is a woman, he shall be subject to the relationship with her husband except in the cases of subparagraphs 9 through 13:

1. Paternal relatives within the sixth degree and the wife of any paternal blood relationship within the fourth degree;

3. Commercial Act;

Article 383 (Number, Term of Office)

(1) Three or more directors shall be directors: Provided, That there may be two or more persons for a company, the total amount of whose capital is less than 500 million won.

4. Traffic Tax Act;

Article 2 Taxables and Tax Rates

(1) The goods subject to traffic tax (hereinafter referred to as "taxable goods") and rates thereon shall be as follows:

1. Gasoline and substitute oil similar thereto:

630 won per liter.

2. Light oil and alternative oil similar thereto:

404 won per liter.

Article 3 (Persons Liable to Pay Traffic Tax) Any person falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be liable to pay traffic tax under the provisions of this Act:

1. Any person manufacturing and transporting goods as prescribed in Article 2 (1);

5. Education Tax Act;

Article 3 (Taxpayer) Any of the following persons shall be liable to pay education tax pursuant to the provisions of this Act:

3. Taxpayers of traffic tax under the Traffic Tax Act;

6. Value-Added Tax Act.

Article 1 (Objects of Taxation)

① 부가가치세는 다믐 각호의 거래에 대하여 부과한다.

1. Supply of goods or services; and

(2) The term "goods" in paragraph (1) means all tangible and intangibles having property value.

Article 2 (Taxpayer)

(1) A person who independently supplies goods (referring to the goods prescribed in Article 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) or services (referring to the services prescribed in Article 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) on a business basis, regardless of whether it is for profit-making purposes (hereinafter referred to as "business operator") shall be liable to pay value-added taxes

(2) The taxpayers referred to in paragraph (1) shall include individuals, corporations (including the State, local governments, and local government associations), unincorporated associations, foundations, and other organizations.

Article 3 (Taxable Period)

(1) The taxable period of value-added taxes for entrepreneurs shall be as follows:

First period: from January 1 to June 30; and

2. Second period: from July 1 to December 31.

Article 6 Supply of Goods

(1) The supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods pursuant to all contractual and legal grounds.