Whether the person liable for secondary tax payment is the person liable for secondary tax payment

It is reasonable to deem that the de facto marital relationship continued from June 30, 2009, the first due date when each national tax liability becomes effective, to December 31, 201, the date when each national tax liability becomes effective, from June 30, 2009, the date when each tax liability becomes effective, until December 31, 201, the date when each tax liability becomes effective.

Article 39 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Investors' Secondary Liability for Tax Payment)

2015Guhap100340 The revocation of disposition of giving notice of payment in arrears

00

000 director of the tax office

April 6, 2016

on October 04, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's notification of the payment of each delinquent amount in attached Form 1 against the plaintiff on March 17, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. AAAA corporation (hereinafter referred to as “AAA”) is a company that engages in the distribution and distribution of other fish, etc., and the Plaintiff is a shareholder that holds 16,000 shares out of 40,000 shares of the total outstanding shares of AA, and BB out of 12,00 shares.

B. AAAAA was in arrears with each corporate tax, value-added tax, and labor income tax listed in attached Table 1 Schedule, and the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff and BB as a specially related person in a de facto marital relationship, and notified the Plaintiff and BB of the payment on April 2, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff and BB constituted an oligopolistic shareholder holding 70% (i.e., Plaintiff 40% + BB 30%) of the shares as at the date when the tax liability for each of the above corporate tax, value-added tax, and wage and salary tax was established (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). On March 17, 2014, the Plaintiff was designated as the secondary taxpayer, and as shown in attached Table 1, the Plaintiff paid the tax due amount for KRW 236,60,440, an amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share share ratio, such as the corporate tax, value-added tax, wage and salary income tax, and KRW 591,501,620.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on July 17, 2014, but the said claim was dismissed on November 18, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 (including each number in the case of additional evidence), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff maintained a de facto marital relationship with BB from May 13, 2009, and terminated a de facto marital relationship with BB on April 17, 2010. Therefore, the instant disposition by the Defendant, based on the premise that the Plaintiff is a specially related person of BB after April 17, 2010, under Article 2 subparag. 20 (a) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 1-2 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 20 subparag. 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23595, Feb. 2, 2012), is merely the period from May 13, 2009 to April 17, 2010.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff is serving as an auditor of AAA from March 11, 2008 until then, and BB is serving as a representative director of AAA from March 14, 201 to March 14, 201.

2) From May 13, 2005, the Plaintiff maintained the BB-related relationship with the BB. From May 13, 2009, the Plaintiff resided with the DFFF 501 Dong 3401 (hereinafter referred to as “FFF 501 Dong 3401”) located with the DFF 501 Dong 3401 (hereinafter referred to as “FF 501 Dong 3401”), and the Plaintiff is residing with the FFF 501 Dong 3401 until now.

3) The Plaintiff and BB’s occupant cards kept and managed by the head of the FF apartment management office at the time when the Plaintiff and BB began residing FFFFF 501, 3401, were written as residents at the time of March 30, 2013.

4) From February 7, 2003 to June 12, 2013, the details of entry into and departure from a foreign country between the Plaintiff and BB is as shown in attached Table 3.

5) On September 18, 2009, BB completed the move-in report with 00 - 00 - 00 - 8-88 - - 00 - - 00 - - 00 - 00 - 100 - 00 - 1404 - 1404 - 3) on July 15, 201.

6) With respect to FFF 501, 3401, the registration for the establishment of chonsegwon was completed on October 30, 2013, based on the following terms: (a) the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff of the lease on a deposit basis, the lease on a deposit basis, and the contract for lease on a deposit basis on a deposit basis on a deposit basis on August 28, 2009.

7) The Plaintiff was engaged in the clothing retail business from May 10, 2002 to April 30, 2003. From January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff received 22,80,000 won annual salary and 21,60,000 won salary from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, 8, and 12, and fact-finding for the head of FFF apartment management office in this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Whether a secondary taxpayer is an oligopolistic shareholder of a corporation ought to be determined as of the date on which a corporation’s tax liability is established (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu405, Dec. 10, 1982).

In light of the following circumstances that show the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and BB continued a de facto marital relationship with BB from June 30, 2009, the first day of the establishment date of each national tax liability listed in the attached Table 1, which was due for the failure of AAA to pay taxes, until December 31, 201, the date of establishment of the corporate tax liability for the first half of June 30, 2009, which was the last day after the date of the establishment of the tax liability for the first half of June 30, 2009. Therefore, the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder holding shares of AAB in excess of 50% as a specially related person of BB from June 30, 209 to December 31, 2011, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the de facto marital relationship was terminated with BB on April 17, 2010 is without merit.

1) The Plaintiff and BB had been in a foreign country more than 10 times from April 17, 2010 to June 12, 2013, where de facto marital relationship was terminated, and the de facto marital relationship was terminated.

Even after this, it is an example that such travel is made.

2) The Plaintiff is currently residing in FFF 501 3401 5,000 owned by BB until now, and is owned by his spouse who had maintained a de facto marital relationship even after the de facto marital relationship is terminated.

It is a common sense to continue residing in Twit. The FFF 501 and 3401 were registered for the establishment of chonsegwon in the future of the Plaintiff, but if the contract of chonsegwon was duly concluded between the Plaintiff and BB, it is difficult to view that the contract of chonsegwon was actually concluded between the Plaintiff and BB by taking full account of the following factors: (a) the completion of the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon on October 30, 2013, which was four years after the date of the contract of chonsegwon ( August 28, 2009) was entered into; (b) the Plaintiff and BB had a de facto marital relationship at the time of August 28, 2009; and (c) the details of the business operated before the Plaintiff was appointed as an auditor in AAA; and (d) the amount of benefits received from AAAAA to the Plaintiff, in light of the contents of the business that the Plaintiff had operated before the appointment of the auditor in AAAA, it is difficult to deem that the contract of chonsegwon was actually concluded between the Plaintiff and BB.

3) The Plaintiff asserted that BB commenced the move-in report with the former JJ from May 2010, but BB completed the move-in report to the same address as the JJ on July 15, 2014 when about four months elapsed since the instant disposition was taken place. In addition, BB completed the move-in report at the same address as the former JJ on September 18, 2009, as “GG Seo-gu Seogdong 8-88” on September 18, 2009, along with the Plaintiff at the time of completing the move-in report, at the time of completing the move-in report, as BB was residing in 46-123, 501, 3401, the FFFFF 501, 123-15, and thus, it is difficult to view that BB had completed the move-in report due to a change in the actual domicile.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.