It is not enough to recognize the identity theft or the name theft of the second taxpayer of the investor.

The Plaintiff was registered in the shareholder registry of this case, and was registered as an auditor for several years from the establishment of the company, and the Plaintiff appears to have known such facts, and even if the payment was made on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the person who was registered as a shareholder is deemed to have the right to the shares, unless the company’s corporate personality was denied. It constitutes the secondary taxpayer.

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

Park AA

Head of Guro Tax Office

February 27, 2013

March 22, 2013

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part that the Defendant designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer for BBP medicine on June 1, 201 and sought revocation of the imposition disposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first term portion in 2009 and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second term portion in 2009, and KRW 000 of the wage and salary income tax for the second term in 2008 and KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2010.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of lawsuit.

On June 1, 2011, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer for BBP medicine; and (b) revoked all the disposition imposing the Plaintiff the value-added tax of KRW 000 (including additional 000), value-added tax of KRW 000 (including additional 000), value-added tax of KRW 2009, and earned income tax of KRW 008 (including additional 000), and corporate tax of KRW 00 (including additional 000) for the business year 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The BBP medicine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the company in this case") is a company established for the purpose of Do and retailing chemical drugs, and as of June 1, 201, the value-added tax of 100 won including the surcharge, the amount of value-added tax of 00 won for the first period of 2009, the amount of corporate tax of 2009, and the amount of Class A earned income for 2000 won for 200 years 200 years , and the amount of additional tax of 2000 won for the business year of 2010. (hereinafter "the former Framework Act").

C. On December 2, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted for a trial to the Tax Tribunal, but the said claim was dismissed on February 22, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry into the facts without any dispute, Gap's 1, 3, and 6 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues is legitimate

On its own initiative, we examine whether the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues is legitimate. The additional dues provided for in Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act are naturally arising and determined by the provisions of the Act without any final procedure by the tax authorities if national tax is not paid by the due date, and when the amount of additional dues is revoked or reduced, additional dues are automatically cancelled or reduced, so the notification of additional dues is automatically cancelled or reduced, and it cannot be viewed as a disposition subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du2013, Sept. 22, 2000). Therefore, the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues in this case is unlawful. (hereinafter, the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues in this case is unlawful.)

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In order to establish the instant company on November 23, 1998, the Plaintiff was registered as a shareholder and auditor in the form of the Plaintiff in order to meet the requirements for the establishment of the instant company under the Commercial Act, and the Plaintiff was not involved in the management of the instant company. In addition, since the Plaintiff was the representative director of the instant company, who was the representative director of the instant company, did not actually take over the shares of the instant company, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff was a shareholder of the instant company was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Paper in the Appendix

C. Facts of recognition

1) The current status of shareholders of the instant company is as follows.

(Omission of Details of Current Status)

2) When establishing the instant company, the Plaintiff was appointed as an auditor and retired on March 31, 2004.

3) Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff did not work full-time in the instant company, the Plaintiff established BBBK Co., Ltd., which, on December 14, 2009, tried to perform business activities, such as subdivision of chemical drugs, when the business affairs of the instant company were hornsed, and operated the same chemical drugs Do and retail business as the instant company.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without any dispute, Gap 2, Eul 3, Eul 17, Eul 1 and 5, each part of Gap 15 evidence, and the whole testimony and arguments, and the purport of Gap 15.

D. Determination

Article 39 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be determined based on whether the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder or not, and even if not, it cannot be determined that the Plaintiff was not an oligopolistic shareholder, and the ownership of shares shall be proved by the list of shareholders, specifications of stock movement, or data, and even if the tax authority appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, it shall not be deemed that the Plaintiff was a shareholder only if the Plaintiff used the name of the shareholder or was recorded in the name other than the real shareholder, but it shall not be deemed that the nominal shareholder who asserts that the Plaintiff was not a shareholder. Also, the Plaintiff did not require that the Plaintiff had the actual exercise of shareholder rights, and it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff had been registered in the name of the company as of the date on which the tax liability was established, and that the Plaintiff was not the representative director of the company, and that there was no other evidence that the Plaintiff had been recorded in the name of the company as of September 1, 208.

4. Conclusion

If so, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues is unlawful, and the plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.