There is a factual basis that could mislead the plaintiff as an oligopolistic stockholder of the above corporation.

Even if there is a factual basis that could mislead the plaintiff as an oligopolistic stockholder of the above corporation and there is a defect in the disposition in this case, it cannot be said that the defect is apparent in appearance.

Article 39 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Guhap1181. Invalidity of the imposition disposition of value-added tax, etc.

】 】

3,620 36,200,00 24.97 Ghana

Isd 3,150 31,500,000 Easts 21.72

e 2,000 20,000,000 13.79

ff 1,000 10,000,000 Other 6.9

Eg 870 8,700,00 Ghana 6.0

Joints 14,500 145,000,000 100

C. The defendant is insufficient to cover the assets of the corporation of this case with national taxes in arrears.

c) Considering that the Plaintiff, which is an oligopolistic shareholder of the foregoing corporation, has secondary tax liability;

On October 16, 2014, according to its investment ratio (24.97%) to the Plaintiff on January 16, 2014, the first installment of the instant corporation for the period of January 2014.

Value-added tax 2,176,240 won, value-added tax 21,347,790 won, and two years in 2014, 2014

Sector Value-Added Tax 2,168,280 won, 42,498,360 won of corporate tax for the business year 2014, and employment offices for January 2014

"each disposition of 12,820 won (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case") was imposed", "(based on recognition) is not disputed, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 5, and Eul evidence 1 (including each number).

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is null and void

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff aged 70 years old has succeeded to the shares of the corporation of this case due to the death of the deceased BB.

A person who has become an investor of the foregoing corporation and filed an application for joining the corporation or joined the corporation in accordance with the articles of incorporation.

there is no receipt of such investment, or the substantial exercise of such rights as an investor;

Although it is not a formal investor of the above corporation due to lack of evidence, it is entirely examined about the process of acquiring the Plaintiff's shares.

Unless otherwise, the Plaintiff is deemed to have secondary tax liability as an oligopolistic stockholder of the instant corporation.

The instant disposition is null and void because its defect is significant and apparent.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) All factual relations such as the legal relation, income, act, etc. which is subject to taxation are generally factual relations

Although the defect in taxation is significant and obvious, it is subject to taxation.

be subject to the taxation of any legal or factual relations which are not subject to such taxation

If there is an objective reason to believe that it is subject to taxation, whether it is subject to taxation;

If it is possible to accurately investigate the actual relationship, the case where the defect is serious.

Even if it is not clear in appearance, and thus it is illegal to misleads the fact of taxation requirements.

A part cannot be deemed as void as a matter of course (Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268 Decided September 4, 2002).

2) In light of the above legal principles, the list of union members at the time of the instant disposition (No. A. 2)

(Evidence) The investment account of the Plaintiff in the relevant documents, such as the statement on the state of stock fluctuation (Evidence No. 1)

3,620 shares of 14,500 shares (10,000 shares per share, 36,200,000 shares, 24.97 per share)

c. in relation to the plaintiff and the plaintiff, which was described as such; and

d. d, E, E, and Eg’s total investment amounting to KRW 135,00,000 (=c 38,600,000 + Plaintiff

36,200,00 won + 31,50,000 won dd 31,500,000 + e 20,000 won + g 8,700,000 won)

The facts leading up to approximately 93.1% of the total investment amount of the above corporation (=135,000,000 won/145,000,000)

As seen earlier, evidence No. 2, and No. 1 can be recognized by each entry of evidence No. 1.

According to the above facts, at least objective and external investments by the Plaintiff in the corporation of this case.

§ 18-2.1 and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes of the State of Isc, Isd, e, e, g and e.

Relatives prescribed in paragraph (2) and the total amount of investment of the corporation is 1/100 of the total amount of investment of the corporation

50. Factual relations that could be mistaken for the Plaintiff to constitute an oligopolistic stockholder of the said corporation by exceeding 50

A. The plaintiff is merely a formal investor as alleged by the plaintiff.

Such a point can only be identified after an accurate investigation of facts.

Even if there is a defect in the disposition of this case, it cannot be said that the defect is apparent in appearance.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course, and the Plaintiff on a different premise.

his argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)

- 5

○ Head of tax office

January 26, 2017

February 16, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On October 16, 2014, the former Cheong-gu branch Defendant confirmed that each imposition of value-added tax of 2,176,240 won for the first term of 2014 against the Plaintiff, value-added tax of 21,347,790 won for the first term of 2014, value-added tax of 2,168,280 won for the second term of 2014, corporate tax of 42,498,360 won for the business year 2014, and tax of 12,820 won for the wage and salary income for January 2014 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. AA farming association corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the corporation of this case") is an unlisted corporation established on February 22, 1993 and engaged in wholesale and retail business of hub products.

B. As a result of the death of the net BB, the Plaintiff, who was an investor of the instant legal entity, was an investor of the said legal entity by succeeding the net Kim Jong-sung, and became the investor of the said legal entity as of June 11, 2014. The composition of the investor as of June 201 is as follows.

Relationship with the largest investor's equity ratio (%) ratio of shares in the name of contribution units (%)

Ec 3,860 38,600,000 26.62