The meaning of oligopolistic stockholders who assume the secondary tax liability of a corporation

In order to have a shareholder of a corporation bear the secondary tax liability pursuant to subparagraph 2 of Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is necessary to have an oligopolistic shareholder be in a position to substantially control the operation of the corporation, and solely on the ground that the shareholder registry is registered as a shareholder in the form of a shareholder registry, it is not possible to have the shareholder

Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu403 Decided January 13, 1981, 82Nu8 Decided September 28, 1982, 83Nu607 Decided January 24, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu63 Decided June 11, 1985

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Attorneys Seo Yong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Head of the Office of Government

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu238 delivered on November 8, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

In order to impose secondary tax liability on the shareholders of a corporation under subparagraph 2 of Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it requires that the oligopolistic shareholders be in a position to substantially control the operation of the corporation, and only the reasons registered as shareholders in the register of shareholders of the corporation in the form of a company cannot be said to be the oligopolistic shareholders (Supreme Court Decision 80Nu403 delivered on January 13, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu8 delivered on September 28, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu607 delivered on January 24, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu63 delivered on June 11, 1985).

According to the court below's decision, at the time when the national tax liability imposed on the non-party new food industry corporation based on its macroficial evidence was established, the plaintiffs were registered as shareholders in the register of shareholders of the above company, but they were not shareholders of the above company, and the disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiffs were oligopolistic shareholders of the above company was illegal. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just and it cannot be found that there was an error of violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation such as the theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)