Whether it can be viewed that a mistake made as an oligopolistic stockholder can be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course because it is clear.

Even if the Plaintiff is not a shareholder, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff was registered as an oligopolistic shareholder in the register of shareholders from the time of its incorporation, and that the register of shareholders was registered as a representative director, it is difficult to view that it is an obvious mistake of fact unless the register of shareholders lacks external appearance, and there is objectively suspected of

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 39 (Secondary Tax Liability of Investors)

Article 12 (Payment Notice to Secondary Taxpayer)

1. All part of the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation for the imposition of each additional charge shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant against the Plaintiff:

1. Value-added tax for the second period of November 15, 2001, KRW 1,449,270 and surcharge 628,920 for the second period of 200;

2. Value-added tax for the first term of November 15, 2001 and surcharge 1,575,090 won for the first term of 2000;

3. Value-added tax for the first period of November 15, 2001 9,983,520 won and additional dues for the first period of 2000;

4. Value-added tax of 8,104,800 won and additional dues for the first period of November 15, 2001, 201;

5. Value-added tax of 200 on November 15, 2001: 17,075,040 and additional dues of 6,795,850 on November 15, 200;

6. Corporate tax of 53,656,330 won as of November 15, 2001 and additional 21,35,040 won as of November 15, 200;

7. Ascertainment that each disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 132,476,160 and additional tax of KRW 7,019,800 do not exist on April 1, 2002.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 특수화물자동차운송사업 등을 영위하는 소외 주식회사 ○○○화물(이하 '소외 회 사'라고 한다)은 원고를 대표이사로, 원고의 동생인 소외 박●●과 소외 이◎◎을 이사 로, 시□□을 감사로 하여 1997. 3. 22. 설립되었고, 1999. 2. 22. 이◎◎이 이사를 사임하고 원고의 제수인 소외 하◆◆가 이사로 등기되었으며, 소외 회사는 1999. 3. 20.을 개업일로 하고 원고를 대표자로, 사업장소재지를 '대구 달성 논공 ★리 511'로, 사업의 종류를 '화물운송주선'으로 하여 남대구세무서에 사업자등록을 하였는데 2001. 9. 27. 소외 회사의 대표이사가 원고에서 소외 신◇◇으로 변경되었고, 2001. 11. 16. 소외 회사의 상호가 '주식회사 ■■'로 변경되었다.

B. Of the 7,000 shares in the register of shareholders of the non-party company, the register of shareholders of the non-party company is registered as holding 4,800 shares (68.57% shares), 1,00 shares (14.29% shares), 600 shares (8.57% shares), 1,000 shares (8.57% shares), and 600 shares (8.57% shares shares) of the non-party Yellow-si and ri (8.57%) respectively.

C. On July 1, 2001, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the non-party company of the value-added tax of KRW 5,293,430 for the first term portion of the value-added tax in 200 and KRW 2,113,570 for the second term portion of the value-added tax in 200. On October 15, 2001, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the non-party company of KRW 5,515,00 for the reason that the non-party company omitted the amount of KRW 368,251,00 for the first term portion of the value-added tax in 200 for the reason that the non-party company made a processed purchase of KRW 14,59,610 for the first term portion of the value-added tax in 200 and KRW 24,901,630 for the second term portion of the value-added tax in 200 for the first term portion of the corporate tax in 2001.

D. The Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff, an oligopolistic shareholder holding 68.57% of the shares of the non-party company on November 15, 2001, as the non-party company did not pay the above value-added tax and corporate tax by the payment deadline; (b) 3,629,70 won (X 68.57%) in the first period of value-added tax in 200; (c) 181,480 won; (d) increased 130,660 won; (d) increased 1,983,520 won (14,50,000 won for the first period of 14,559,610 won for 200; (e) additional tax for 30.65 won for the total income tax; (e) additional tax for 30.75 won for the year 200 won for the Plaintiff; and (e) additional tax for 205 won for the year 200,0700 won for the additional tax for 25 won

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4-2, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 through 11, 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the litigation of this case is legal; and

A. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

The defendant, although the lawsuit of this case falls under the revocation of the designation of the secondary taxpayer and the revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax, it did not go through a request for examination or a request for adjudication under Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is a necessary pre-trial procedure, and asserts that the period of request has already expired, and thus, it is unlawful. As seen earlier, the lawsuit of this case is seeking confirmation of the absence of an obligation against the plaintiff due to each of the value-added tax, the disposition imposing corporate tax, and the disposition imposing global income tax, etc., which is imposed on the plaintiff by the designation of the secondary taxpayer. This type of lawsuit is not necessary to undergo a request for examination

(b) Whether the existence of the obligation for imposition of additional dues is confirmed or not; and

If national taxes are not paid by the due date, the additional dues and aggravated additional dues under Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act are a kind of incidental dues imposed in the meaning of interest for arrears on unpaid portion, and if national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date for payment of the due date, the additional dues and aggravated additional dues under the provisions of the above Act shall be naturally established and the amount thereof shall also be determined. However, in order to commence the collection procedure, the demand for the payment of the additional dues can be urged by the demand notice, and if the demand for the payment of the additional dues is unreasonable or defect occurs in the procedure, the demand for the payment of the additional dues and increased additional dues can only be appealed by a suit for cancellation (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu168, May 8, 190). According to the above evidence, the defendant is acknowledged to have notified the plaintiff of the payment of the additional dues and increased additional dues and notified the plaintiff of the payment of them together with the additional dues and increased additional dues, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the payment after the due date for payment.

A. The plaintiff's principal

In light of the substance over form principle, the Defendant is liable to pay taxes to the △△△△△, the actual owner of the non-party company, in order to take advantage of the name of the Plaintiff and establish the non-party company and make business registration, and the Defendant is obliged to designate the non-party company as the actual owner of the non-party company. As such, each of the dispositions of this case, which the Plaintiff, who did not have any relation with the non-party company, designated as the taxpayer, is invalid, and there is no obligation such as

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged as above and the evidence No. 4-6 of the record of the non-party company's corporate register were established on March 22, 1997, the non-party company established on the non-party company's corporate register, i.e., the representative director, the plaintiff's birth was registered as the director of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was registered as the director of the non-party company on March 25, 2002. The plaintiff received a demand notice on the non-party company's delinquency in payment of taxes from the defendant around March 2002 and knew that he was the representative director of the non-party company. On April 5, 2005, the non-party company's delinquency in payment of taxes for the non-party company caused losses of 13 million won due to the public sale of the plaintiff's forest, but it is difficult to take any measures, but it is hard to find that the non-party company Gap's testimony was made in the name of the non-party company No. 4 in the name of the non-party 1 and the witness of the non-party 1.

In addition, even if there is a defect that misleads the facts of taxation, if it is serious, it cannot be deemed that the taxation disposition can be cancelled if it is not objectively clear. If the mistake of facts is based on the wrong taxation data, and if the taxation data lacks external shape and objectively lacks its establishment or authenticity, it cannot be deemed that the mistake of facts due to the taxation data is objectively apparent defect (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu286, Sept. 25, 1984). Thus, even if the Plaintiff was not the shareholder of the non-party company, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is hard to view that the above disposition was invalid because it was merely an oligopolistic shareholder at the time of establishment of the non-party company, and the Plaintiff was registered as the oligopolistic shareholder at the time of its establishment, and the representative director registered as the corporate register, and it is difficult to view that the above disposition was invalid because it was objectively doubtful by the non-party company, not an oligopolistic shareholder, even if it was objectively suspected that the non-party company had an oligopolistic shareholder's name or a false document.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking the confirmation of existence of the obligation of each additional dues is legitimate, and all of them are dismissed. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.