Since it is reasonable to see the plaintiff as the second-name shareholder, and the disposition of this case premised on the plaintiff as the oligopolistic shareholder is unlawful.

The plaintiff's water guarantee can be deemed as an act to assist the self-style ParkCC. The plaintiff's final academic background is highly likely to have been nominal because it has no ability to operate a wholesaler of chemical drugs with the people's river, it is difficult to view that ParkCC led the disposal of shares, and that all the shareholders' members were composed of family members to pay the price of shares.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

KimA

Head of Guro Tax Office

February 27, 2013

March 15, 2013

1. Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on June 1, 201, the first half of the value-added tax (including additional taxes), 000 won of the second half of the value-added tax (including additional taxes), 2009, 000 won of the second half of the value-added tax (including additional taxes), and 000 won of the raw earned income tax for the business year 2008, and 000 won of the corporate tax for the business year 2010 (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The list of shareholders listed on the register of BBP medicine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) are as listed below in Table 1: Non-party company failed to pay the first value-added tax of 2009 (including additional taxes), the second value-added tax of 000 (including additional taxes) in 2009, and the second tax of 000 (including additional taxes) in 2008, and 000 (including additional taxes) corporate tax for interim prepayment for the business year of 2010.

(St. 1 omitted)

B. On June 1, 2011, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff as a secondary taxpayer; (b) imposed and notified the Plaintiff’s tax of KRW 000 (including additional taxes); (c) value-added tax of KRW 1, 2009 (including additional taxes); and (d) tax of KRW 000 (including additional taxes); and (c) tax of KRW 000 (including additional taxes); and (d) corporate tax of KRW 00 (including additional taxes) for the business year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection on August 2, 201, but was dismissed by the Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on August 25, 2011. The Plaintiff filed an appeal on December 2, 2011, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on February 22, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 1 to 4, evidence 1 to 2, evidence 1, 2, 3, and 6 evidence 1, 2, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since ParkCC only is a name shareholder registered in the register of shareholders, and is not involved in the management of the non-party company, it does not constitute the second taxpayer, and the disposition of this case, which is different from this, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On August 16, 2011, ParkCC prepared and submitted a confirmation document stating that the capital was fully invested at the time of incorporation of a non-party company, and that the plaintiff, and ParkE are merely a borrowed shareholder. ParkCC stated in this court as follows:

(Omission of Statement)

(2) The Plaintiff’s final academic background is a national school. On June 27, 2008, with respect to the OOO 0000O 000000, which is owned by the Plaintiff, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was completed on the part of the Nonparty Company, the maximum debt amount of 00 won, and the creditor FF Product Industry Co., Ltd., and the creditors were changed to FF AD S Co., Ltd. on September 17, 2009, and the debtor was changed to BBBC on March 111, 2011.

(3) ParkG was imposed on March 23, 1998 a disposition of suspension of transaction with a bill of exchange and Promissory Notes.

(4) The plaintiff's seal affixed to the articles of incorporation of the non-party company is affixed with a seal.

The plaintiff's seal affixed to the minutes of the extraordinary shareholders' meeting on November 23, 2004, the minutes of the board of directors, and the minutes of the board of directors on March 31, 2010, which were affixed to the minutes of the ordinary shareholders' meeting on March 31,

(5) On August 9, 2011, the formerJ, as an employee of the non-party company, prepared and submitted to the non-party company, a written confirmation of facts that the non-party company was either the Plaintiff or the non-party did not receive a direction from the Plaintiff. Jeju HH made a statement to the same effect at this court (2012Guhap16701) on October 19, 2012. The formerJ stated on the same day at this court (2012Guhap16725) that “the Plaintiff did not participate in the transfer of the shares in the name of the Plaintiff.”

(6) The Plaintiff is respectively registered on November 23, 1998, when he was appointed as a director on November 23, 1998, and on November 23, 2001, November 23, 2004, and November 23, 2007, respectively, and on November 23, 2010.

(7) On December 29, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to transfer 2,000 shares of the non-party company to JK at KRW 000 per share, and reported and paid the transfer income tax on February 28, 2012. The details of the deposit and withdrawal after the transfer contract was entered as follows:

(Attachment 2 omitted)

(8) On December 6, 2007, KimD, the spouse of ParkCC, left the United States and did not enter the Republic of Korea until now. On December 17, 2009, ParkCC entered into a contract for the transfer of KimD's shares in the name of Kim Jong-ok under the name of KimD and entered into on November 23, 2010. KimD is listed in the corporate register of the non-party company as a director on November 23, 1998, and retired on November 23, 2010. Kim Jong-D (2012Gu 16725) against the defendant in Seoul Administrative Court (2012Gu 16725) that "the second taxpayer was designated, and the disposition of the Seoul High Court imposed on the defendant was revoked on the defendant, and that the Seoul High Court's decision was rejected on November 30, 2012."

(9) The Plaintiff stated in this court as follows.

[Based on Recognition] Items A 2 through 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16 (including household numbers), Eul evidence 4, and the witness ParkCC's testimony, the results of the plaintiff's self-examination, and the purport of the whole argument

D. Determination

(1) Determination of whether a person is an oligopolistic shareholder is a member of a group of stocks owned by at least 51/100 in a special relationship, and the facts of stock ownership should be proven by the tax authority through the data, such as a list of stockholders, a statement of stock movement or a certified transcript of corporate register, etc., but, in cases where the tax authority appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, where there are circumstances, such as where the name of the shareholder was stolen or the name was recorded in a name other than the real owner, the actual shareholder cannot be deemed to be a shareholder, but this does not require proof by the nominal owner claiming that he is not a shareholder (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du983, Sept. 11, 2008)

(2) It is recognized that back to the instant case, the Plaintiff was registered as a shareholder in the register of Nonparty Company in the year 2008 to 2010, and that ParkCC did not have any evidence of payment of the Plaintiff’s shares, and that the Plaintiff guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligations, and that the Plaintiff was registered as this company from the time the Nonparty Company was established, and that the share transfer contract was concluded in the name of the Plaintiff and the transfer income tax was reported and paid.

However, considering the fact that the plaintiff, the representative director, and the employees of the non-party company consistently stated that "the plaintiff did not participate in the management of the non-party company", and that the water guarantee can be seen as an act to assist the self-employed Tax, and that the plaintiff operated the non-party company. ② Park GG has to have expertise in operating the non-party company at the time of the registration of the LL Trading business, and that the plaintiff's final academic background is a national school, it is highly probable that the plaintiff has no ability to operate the chemical wholesaler, and that the plaintiff has nominal name to Park GGG, and that it is difficult to consider that the plaintiff has no ability to operate the chemical wholesaler, and that the non-party company has provided the purchase price of the non-party company in his/her name, and that it is hard to consider that the Kim J used the apartment's stocks in his/her name, and that it did not have any other special rights to use the plaintiff's stocks after the transfer of the plaintiff's shares, and that it did not have any other rights to self-employed stocks.

(3) Therefore, it is reasonable to see the Plaintiff as the primary shareholder, and the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, it is decided to accept it and it is also decided as ordered.