The designation of the secondary tax liability made against the plaintiff, deeming that the plaintiff holds and actually conducts shares, is legitimate.

Whether the Plaintiff actually holds and manages shares for A Construction and is liable for secondary tax liability for the amount of delinquent local tax in arrears.

Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015Guhap68872

○ ○

Head of Central Tax Office

November 15, 2016

January 17, 2017

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for revocation of the notification of additional dues shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On September 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer by a limited liability company A Construction; and (b) revoked the notification of payment of value-added tax of KRW 172,197,060 (including additional charges of KRW 49,374,520) against the Plaintiff on February 2, 2006.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 20, 2012, the Defendant imposed corporate tax of 351,865,740 won on A Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A Construction”), but upon the failure to pay A Construction, the Defendant designated the oligopolistic shareholder BB and CCC (which held 65%, 25% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of A Construction, and hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”) as the secondary taxpayer of A Construction.

B. BB and CCC transferred the instant shares to DD on October 2005, and DD again transferred the instant shares to EE on or around November 2005, and submitted evidentiary documents to the Defendant. The Defendant, on May 7, 2013, designated EE, an oligopolistic shareholder of A Construction, as the secondary taxpayer of A Construction. However, EE filed an objection on July 1, 2013, stating that it is merely the actual owner of the instant shares and merely lent the Plaintiff’s name. The Defendant, on September 16, 2013, designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of A Construction’s corporate tax for the business year 2006 corporate tax, and notified the Plaintiff of the amount equivalent to the share ratio (90%) out of the corporate tax amount in arrears.

C. In addition, on September 4, 2014, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer for value-added tax; (b) notified the Plaintiff of KRW 122,822,520, and the Plaintiff of KRW 49,374,540, which correspond to the share ratio (90%) of the instant shares out of the value-added tax amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the payment of the value-added tax for the second period of February 2, 2006; and (d) notified the payment of additional dues.

D. On January 12, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on January 12, 2015, but a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered by the Tax Tribunal on June 25, 2015.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's Nos. 1, 2, Eul's No. 1 and 2 (including all family cards with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the claim for revocation against the notice of payment of the instant additional dues among the instant lawsuit

The plaintiff sought revocation of the payment notice of the additional dues of this case, and therefore, we examine the legitimacy thereof ex officio.

A surcharge under Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act is a kind of incidental tax imposed in the meaning of a interest in arrears where national taxes are not paid by the due date. If national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date of payment by the due date without the due date of payment by the due date, it naturally occurs pursuant to Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act, and the amount thereof is determined. Thus, even if the tax authority issued a tax notice and notified the additional dues along with the due date, it is not a disposition subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du2013, Sept. 2

In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s notice of the instant surcharge was also given to the Plaintiff, but this does not constitute a disposition subject to appeal, and thus, the part of the claim for revocation of the instant surcharge payment notice in the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

원고는 A건설의 주식을 전혀 소유하고 있지 않고 A건설의 경영을 사실상 지배하는 자에도 해당하지 않는다. 이 사건 주식의 실질적인 소유자는 원고의 부친인 FFF로서, FFF는 A건설의 내부적인 자금집행업무와 사단법인 ◆◆복지회(이하 '◆◆복지회'라고 한다)와 관련된 업무를 자신의 아들이자 원고의 동생인 GGG에게 전담하게 하였고, A건설에 자금이 부족하면 이를 조달하는 업무를 처리하는 등 A건설을 실질적으로 운영해 왔고, 원고는 FFF의 딸로서 A건설의 업무를 도왔을 뿐이다. FFF는 2006. 5. 30. A건설 계좌에 A건설의 운영자금으로 130,000,000원을 입금하였고 HHH으로 하여금 자신의 아들 QQQ 명의로 대출받은 167,000,000원 중 163,852,970원을 A건설 계좌에 입금하게 하였는바, 이는 FFF가 A건설을 실질적으로 운영하였음을 입증한다. 원고는 2006년 당시 주식회사 △△△△△(이하 '△△△△△'이라 한다)을 운영하고 있어 다른 회사를 운영할 필요가 없었고 세금을 체납하는 등 자금사정도 좋지 않았다.

Therefore, the disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff actually controlled the management of A Construction shall be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Article 14(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that if the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom such income, profit, property, act or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs shall be liable for tax payment, and Article 39(1) provides that if the property of a corporation is insufficient to cover the national tax, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears, the person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs as of the date on which the liability to pay national tax is established shall be liable for secondary tax liability for such shortage, while subparagraph 2(b) provides that the person who actually controls the management of the corporation is liable for tax payment, regardless of the name of the director or other director.

2) In full view of the evidence No. 3-1.2, the evidence No. 20-1, 2, 3, the evidence No. 5, 9-13, the witness EE’s statements and the whole purport of the pleading, the following facts can be acknowledged:

가) A건설의 2006 사업연도의 유일한 매출내역은 ◆◆복지회가 발주한 상금 복지관(이하 '◆◆복지관'이라 한다) 건축공사이다. A건설의 2007 사업연도의 매출내역은 미앤지아파트(변경 후 명칭 : ◉◉◉아파트, 원고가 그 신축공사를 도급받아 시공하다가 공사가 중단된 후 A건설이 나머지 공사를 시공하였다. 이하 '◉◉◉아파트' 라고 한다) 건축공사와 ◆◆복지관 건축공사가 유일하였고, 2008 사업연도에는 매출내역이 존재하지 아니한 채 2008. 6. 12. 폐업되었다.

B) On November 2005, between DD and EE entered into a contract for acquisition by transfer of a company with the following contents.

1. EE shall pay 150,000,000 won to D in the order of the following paragraphs in return for taking over management rights, business rights, and 90% of Company shares from DD:

1. DD shall replace the EE with all officers, such as directors, representative directors, and auditors of the company, transfer 90% of the company shares held by DD, and EE shall pay 70 million won to DD until November 30, 2005.

(2)D shall adjust all public charges (including various insurance, pension, taxes and public charges), all overdue wages for employees, and all debts, etc. incurred at the time when DD serves as the representative director, and EE shall pay DD KRW 30 million when such procedures are completed.

3. DD shall adjust all the obligations (including accounts receivable receivable) arising while BB serves as the representative director, and when the above procedure is completed, EE shall pay 50 million won to DD: Provided, That it shall be paid in the event of a confirmation of absence of any more claims from each customer and creditors of the target company, a confirmation of BB, and a written confirmation, if accompanied.

2. Matters to be entered into additional agreements: All such agreements shall be null and void when it becomes impossible to carry out the construction works of a welfare center in the name of A Construction.

C) Around 2005, BB transferred the instant shares to DD on October 2005, around 32,500 shares of AD Construction (65% equity ratio), CCC shares 12,500 shares (25% equity ratio), and JJ shares 5,000 shares (10% equity ratio). DD transferred the instant shares to BB and CCC on November 2005, but BB and CCC left the name in the name of BB and CCC after completing the change of entry. Since around 2007, B shares were 32,50 shares from 32,50 to 5,00 shares (10%), CCC shares were 00 to 00 shares from 12,500 to 100 shares, 50GK shares (10% equity ratio), 200, 50GK shares were 100, 500GGK shares under the name of GJ (10% equity shares), 100, 5000GG shares (1050, 5050.

EEE는 앞서 본 바와 같이 자신에 대한 제2차 납세의무자 지정처분에 대해 이 의를 신청하면서 '평소 알고 지내던 원고로부터 수차례 회사를 인수해야 하는데 자신의 이름으로 인수할 수 없는 사정이 있다. 믿을 수 있는 사람이 본인뿐이니 도와달라는 부탁을 받고 원고에게 A건설 지분을 인수하도록 명의를 빌려주었다. 당시 원고는 A건설을 인수하여야 하는 이유에 대해서 A건설이 ◆◆복지관 공사를 수주하였기 때문에 반드시 위 회사를 인수하여야만 한다고 하였다. 원고는 DDD로부터 매수한 이 사건 주식을 아버지 FFF(39%), 동생 GGG(10%), KKK(29%), LLL(12%) 명의로 분산하여 명의개서를 마쳤다.'라고 진술하였고, 이 법정에서 증인으로 출석하여 '원고가 이 사건 주식을 포기한다는 백지위임장과 인감 2통을 요구하여 본인이 작성해 주었다. 이 사건 주식의 인수과정이나 대표이사로 취임한 동안 FFF를 본 적 이 없다'라고 진술하였다.

라) 위 회사 양수도계약 이후인 2005. 12. 19. MMM가 A건설의 대표이사로 선임되었는데, MMM는 피고가 실시한 세무조사 과정에서 '원고가 본인에게 ◉◉◉아파트 건축공사를 도급하고도 공사대금을 지급하지 못하고 있던 중 ◆◆복지관 건축공사를 수주한 A건설을 인수한다고 하면서 곧 공사대금을 주겠다고 하였다. 원고는 2005년 11월경 A건설을 인수하는 과정에서 대표이사 명의를 빌려줄 사람을 구하지 못하였다고 하면서 본인에게 명의를 빌려줄 것을 요청하였다. 이에 본인은 ◉◉◉아파트의 공사대금을 받을 생각과 ◆◆복지관 건축공사 중 일부를 하도급 받을 생각으로 대표이사 명의를 빌려주었다.'라고 진술하였다.

마) A건설의 직원으로서 ◆◆복지관 공사현장에서 현장소장으로 근무한 HHH은 '원고가 A건설의 실질적인 소유자이다. 본인은 2006년경 원고의 지시에 따라 ◆◆복지관 건축공사의 현장소장으로 근무하였고 원고의 요청에 따라 △△△△△이 시공하는 구리시 교문동 소재 일반주택 신축공사 현장을 방문하여 현장점검 및 확인을 하였다. 본인은 위 각 공사에 관한 지시를 모두 원고로부터 받았고, 공사 상황에 대한 보고를 원고에게만 하였다.'라는 내용의 사실확인서를 작성하였다.

바) ◆◆복지관의 건축공사 현장과 △△△△△이 시공한 단독주택공사 현장에서 목수, 미장, 조적, 방수 등의 일을 노무 도급받아 실시한 NNN은 '원고가 위 두 공사 현장 모두에 가서 일을 해야 한다고 하였고, 당시 공사 대가를 A건설 명의의 계좌와 PPP의 계좌를 통해 송금받았다. 나머지 17,494,000원의 노임을 받지 못하여 가온 건설을 상대로 노임청구의 소를 제기하였는데, 원고는 2013. 6. 11. 위 소송의 조정기일에서 자신이 A건설의 실질적인 주인이며 본인에게 일을 시킨 장본인이라고 진술하여 판사로부터 조정절차에 참석하도록 허락받았다'라는 내용의 사실확인서를 작성하였다.

사) 원고를 도와 ◆◆복지관 건축공사와 ◉◉◉아파트 건축공사에 관련된 자금 관리에 직접적으로 관여한 RRR는 '원고가 ◆◆복지회로부터 받은 공사대금을 상금 복지관의 공사대금으로 사용하지 않고, A건설 명의의 계좌에서 본인의 처 PPP와 FFF, QQQ, GGG, SSS의 계좌로 수시로 입출금하는 방법을 통해 자금을 세탁한 후 ◉◉◉아파트의 공사대금을 지급하는데 사용하거나 개인적인 용도로 사용하였다.'라는 취지의 사실확인서를 작성하였다.

아) 2006. 5. 30. FFF 명의의 계좌에서 A건설의 계좌로 130,000,000원이 송금되었고, 2006. 10. 12. HHH 명의의 계좌에서 A건설의 계좌로 163,852,970원이 송금되었다. 한편 FFF는 A건설을 상대로 위 금액 합계 293,852,970원이 대여금이라고 주장하며 위 금액의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하여 그 청구를 인용한 지급명령이 확정되었고, 위 채권을 피보전권리로 하여 A건설의 ◆◆복지회에 대한 공사대금 채권을 압류하고 그 배당절차에서 38,178,220원을 회수하였다.

3) In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff actually controlled the management of A Construction around 2006, taking into account the above facts of recognition and the statements in the evidence Nos. 17 and 19.

가) DDD과 EEE는 회사 양수도 계약 체결 시에 A건설이 ◆◆복지관 공사를 시공하는 것을 계약의 유효조건으로 삼았고, A건설의 매출내역은 ◆◆복지관건축공사가 대부분을 차지하는 점, 원고가 자신이 운영하는 △△△△△의 공사현장에서 일하던 인부들을 ◆◆복지관 공사현장에도 투입한 점에 비추어 보면, 원고는 자신이 운영하는 △△△△△이 ◆◆복지관 공사를 수주하지 못하게 되자 위 공사를 도급받은 A건설을 인수함으로써 위 공사를 시공하고자 하였던 것으로 보인다.

나) 원고는 EEE 명의로 이 사건 주식이 이전된 후 MMM를 대표이사로 선임하는데 적극 관여하였고 A건설의 직원들의 업무와 ◆◆복지관 신축공사 현장에서 일하는 인부들의 작업을 적극적으로 지시.관리하였다. 또한 ◆◆복지관 공사대금으로 수령한 금원을 자신이 운영하는 별도의 법인인 △△△△△의 ◉◉◉아파트 공사비용으로 지출하는 등 ◆◆복지관 공사의 자금집행에 적극 관여하였다.

C) On May 30, 2006, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that FF was the actual operator of A Construction since FF deposited KRW 130,00,000 and KRW 163,852,970, which was deposited from the account under the name of HH on October 12, 2006 to cover the corporate operating funds, and that FF was deposited to the effect that FF was the actual operator of A Construction. However, FF claimed the above amount as a loan to A Construction, and collected part of FF. Thus, it is difficult to view that the above amount deposited in the name of FFFF was deposited with A Construction’s operating funds, apart from the loan amount corresponding to the above amount, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed money from TF’s account with its obligor and received part of FF’s remittance to the account under the name of FF and repaid part of FF’s debt from the account under the name of FF, the Plaintiff’s account was not a large amount of loan from the account in the name of FF.

D) The Plaintiff asserted that FF had acquired the instant shares from the owner of FF to the construction cost that was received in relation to the construction of new housing units in Seongbuk-dong, 258-5, Y-dong, Y-dong, Y-dong, Y-dong, Y-dong, Y-dong, Y-dong, Y-dong, but the Plaintiff filed a complaint by the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff subcontracted the said construction work, and the Plaintiff recognized that part of the subcontracted construction cost was unpaid in the above accusation case, and the said multi-household housing construction is deemed to have been executed by the Plaintiff, and the FF would not be deemed to have paid the price of the instant shares to the said multi-household housing construction

4) Therefore, the instant disposition against the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer against A Construction is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion against this is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the payment notice of additional dues in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.