Whether the designation of the secondary tax liability for oligopolistic shareholders is justifiable, and whether the sales without the purchase amount are legitimate.

It is reasonable to view that the company has acquired shares equivalent to 80% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares and that such fact was actually able to exercise its rights to the shares, as long as it is stated in the statement on changes in the shares, etc., and it is not possible to deny the omission of sales solely on the basis of an assertion based on the abstract basis without presenting objective

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment of Contributors)

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 83,621,80 on the aggregate of the value-added taxes stated in the separate sheet (2) and (3) the corporate tax on June 1, 2005 as stated in the corporate tax column as stated in the separate sheet (2) of the corporate tax for the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. On February 9, 2001, ○○○○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○ building was an unlisted corporation established for the purpose of indoor decoration business, etc. In addition, around 2001, 161,218,200 and 7 items of value-added tax, totaling KRW 161,218,200 and value-added tax amounting to KRW 104,527,270 were delinquent (hereinafter referred to as “the “the instant rate of delinquent tax”). On August 25, 2004, ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the instant rate of delinquent tax”). Around December 31, 2003, it was ex officio closed by the Defendant as of December 31, 2003.

B. According to the list of shareholders or investors of the non-party company and the statement on changes in stocks, etc., the Plaintiff held 8,000 shares (hereinafter referred to as the “E”) among the total number of shares issued by the non-party company in the business year of 2002 to 2004.

C. On June 1, 2005, the Defendant: (a) deemed the Plaintiff as the oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company in arrears with corporate tax, etc. as above, deemed the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of the non-party company; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the total corporate tax amounting to 80% of the tax amount in arrears in the initial corporate tax column and value-added tax column as indicated in the attached Table (1) and the attached Table (3), and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 128,974,550 in total and value-added tax amounting to 83,621,80 (hereinafter “

라. 원고는 당초 부과처분에 불복하여 2005. 6. 22. 피고에게 이의신청을 하였고, 이에 피고는 2005. 9. 8. 소외 회사의 2002 내지 2004 사업연도 귀속 법인세는 단순경비율에 의하여 18,969,770원으로 경정하며, 2003년 2기분 부가가치세 기납부세액으로 잘못 공제되었던 부분을 2003년 1기분 부가가치세 기납부세액으로 공제하도록 경정하고, 나머지 청구는 기각한다는 취지로 결정하였다.❴이와 같이 이의신청을 통하여 당초 부과 처분에서 감액 경정되고 남은 별지 부과 목록 (2) 경정된 법인세란 기재 법인세 합계 15,175,800원과 (3) 부가가치세란 기재 부가가치세 합계 83,621,800원의 각 부과 처분을 통틀어 이하 ´이 사건 부과 처분´이라 한다.❵

E. On November 9, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on the grounds that it was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, but was dismissed on May 1, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Gap evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-1, Gap evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 2-1 through 7, Eul evidence 3-1 through 3, Eul evidence 3-1 through 3, Eul evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the imposition disposition is legitimate;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On May 3, 200, the Plaintiff lent KRW 150 million to ○○, the representative director of the non-party company, to secure this, the Plaintiff temporarily acquired the instant shares as a collateral for security and registered as a director of the non-party company. Since it was not entirely involved in the management of the non-party company, it does not constitute an oligopolistic shareholder with secondary tax liability against the non-party company, the Defendant’s disposition of this case otherwise reported is unlawful.

(2) Although there was a disguised and fictitious suspicion that the sales tax invoice of the non-party company issued after ○○○ in 2002 was excessively less purchase compared to sales, and that the payment of price and the flow of funds were not accurately identified, the Defendant recognized the non-party company as a legitimate transaction without properly investigating the non-party company and determined and notified the corporate tax and value-added tax, thereby resulting in the instant delinquent tax amount. Accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition of this case was unlawful since it violated the original Clr of substantial taxation.

(b) Relevant statutes;

It shall be as stated in the attached statutes, etc.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On or around January 5, 1999, the Plaintiff, a certified tax accountant who started his business and operated on or around May 18, 200, concluded an agency contract for reporting entry and value-added tax and corporate tax with ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”), which was operated by ○○○○○○○○○○ on or around January 15, 201, made an investment in the business related to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on or around January 15, 201, owned 2,400 through 72,00 shares among the total outstanding shares.

(2) On January 18, 2002, the Plaintiff submitted, as evidence, the proof of the existence of the obligation and the share transfer collateral agreement (Evidence No. 9) to the effect that the Plaintiff agreed to register as the representative director of the non-party company on December 31, 2001, 7,000 out of the shares issued by the non-party company retroactively on December 31, 2001, in order to secure KRW 150 million among the obligations owed to the Plaintiff due to the non-party company ○○○○○○○○.

(3) The changes in shareholders, executive officers, and shares of the non-party company are as listed below. The plaintiff held 8,000 shares of the non-party company as listed below between February 12, 2001 and December 31, 2004, which amount to 80% of the shares of the non-party company as listed below, and was registered as directors from the time of incorporation of the non-party company.

Name of shareholders

Positions and Positions

Current status of changes in shares;

Jinay

February 12, 2001

December 31, 2001

December 31, 2002

Gangwon ○

Representative Director;

2,000 Shares (20%)

-

-

Resignation on January 12, 200

Directors

1,000 Shares (10%)

800 Shares (80%)

8,000 Shares

-

○ ○

Auditor

1,000 Shares (10%)

-

-

-

Han ○

-

6,000 Shares (60%)

200 note (20%)

200 note (20%)

The appointment of the representative director on January 12, 200

Total

10,000 Shares (100%)

10,000 Shares (100%)

10,000 Shares (100%)

(4) On February 26, 201, the Plaintiff received 281,000 won from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on February 27, 2001, 1 million won from 7.2 million won from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on February 28, 2001, 1,000 won from ○○○○○○○○○○ on February 28, 2001, 1,727 won on April 26, 2001, and 4.6 million won on April 27, 2001, respectively.

(5) On November 17, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant to punish the Defendant, who arbitrarily stolen the name of the non-party company, on the ground that the sales tax invoice in an amount equivalent to KRW 364,570,00,000, issued by the non-party company from January 17, 2002 to January 1, 2004, appears to have been processed without any actual transaction (written objection for tax evasion).

(6) Accordingly, the Defendant conducted an investigation on the non-party company on March 1, 2005, and notified the non-party company of the total amount of KRW 317,670,000 and the total amount of KRW 625,670,000, which did not issue the sales tax invoice even if the non-party company issued the sales tax invoice as listed in the following table during the period from January 2002 to January 2004, and the total of KRW 308,670,000 and KRW 625,670,000, which did not issue the sales tax invoice, as the total amount of KRW 161,218,200 and KRW 104,527,270 for the business year from April 1, 2005.

❬ 매출세금계산서 발행분 중 매출액으로 신고누락한 금액❭

Taxation Period

Sales tax invoices (pro ratas omitted in filing sales declarations)

non-higher

Trade Name

Business Number

Value of supply (cost)

1, 2002

(m)○○○

○○-○-○○○○

25,450,000

2, 2002

○○ ○

○○-○-○○○○

121,620,000

○○○○○○

○○-○-○○○○

4,000,000

(m)○○○

○○-○-○○○○

30,000,000

2 2003

○○○○

○○-○-○○○○

30,000,000

The actual seller level;

1, 2004

( principal)○○○○○○

○○-○-○○○○

106,600,000

Total

317,670,000

❬매출세금계산서 미발행 매출분❭

Taxation Period

Personal Information of the seller

Sales (cost)

Name of Corporation

An ordering person

1, 2002

○○ ○○ ○○

○ Kim

50,000,000

○○○○○

○ ○

50,000,000

2, 2002

○○ ○○ ○○

○ ○

95,000,000

2 2003

○○○○○○○

○ ○

48,000,000

1, 2004

○○○○○○

○ ○

65,000,000

Total

308,000,000

(7) 원고는 2007. 3. 7. 피고에게 이 사건 부과처분 중 부가가치세 전부인 합계 83,621,800원 및 법인세로 15,184,560원을 납부하여, 원고 소유의 ○○시 ○○면 ○○리 ○○-○ 임야 374㎡에 대한 압류해제를 받기도 하였다.(8) 한○○은 2005. 12.경 원고에게, 소외 회사의 대표이사로서 본인의 책임 하에 회사를 운영하여 왔고, 원고는 소외 회사의 운영에 직접 또는 간접적으로도 참여한 사실이 없다는 취지의 사실확인서(갑 10호증의 1)를 작성하여 주었다.[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 3호증의 1,2,갑 4호증의 1 내지 6, 갑 5호증, 갑 6호증의 1 내지 6, 갑 9호증, 갑 11호증의 1 내지 10, 갑 12, 13호증, 갑 15 내지 17호증의 각 1, 2, 을 4호증, 을 5호증의 1 내지 3,을 6호증의 각 기재, 갑 10호증의 1, 갑 18호증의 1의 일부 기재, 변론 전체의 취지라. 판단(1) 원고의 첫 번째 주장에 대한 판단(가) 국세기본법(2006. 4. 28. 법률 제 7930호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ´법´이라 한다) 제 39조 제2항의 규정에 의하면 ´과점주주´라 함은 주주 또는 유한책임사원 1인과 그와 대통령령이 정하는 친족 기타 특수관계에 있는 자로서 그들의 소유주식의 합계 또는 출자액의 합계가 당해 법인의 발행주식 총수 또는 출자총액의 100분의 51 이상인자들을 말하고, 법 제 39조 제1항 제2호 가목의 규정에 의하면 비상장법인의 재산으로 그 법인에게 부과되거나 그 법인이 납부할 국세 ㆍ 가산금과 체납처분비에 충당하여도 부족한 경우에는 그 국세의 납세의무의 성립일 현재 당해 법인의 발행주식 총수 또는 출자총액의 100분의 51 이상의 주식 또는 출자지분에 관한 권리를 실질적으로 행사하는 자에 해당하는 과점주주가, 그 부족액을 그 법인의 발행주식 총수 또는 출자총액으로 나눈 금액에 과점주주의 소유주식수 또는 출자액을 곱하여 산출한 금액을 한도로 제2차 납세의무를 지는 것으로 규정하고 있다.따라서, 과점주주가 된 자에 대하여 제2차 납세의무를 지우기 위하여는 법 제39조 제2항에서 정한 형식적 요건을 갖추어야 할 뿐만 아니라, 당해 과점주주가 당해 법인의 발행주식 총수 또는 출자총액의 100분의 51 이상의 주식 또는 출자지분에 관한 권리를 실질적으로 행사할 수 있는 지위에 있어야 한다는 실질적 요건까지 갖추어야 할 것인바, 여기서 ´당해 법인의 발행주식 총수의 100분의 51 이상의 주식에 관한 권리를 실질적으로 행사할 수 있는 지위´에 있다는 의미는 반드시 현실적으로 주주권을 행사하고 있을 것을 요구하는 것은 아니고, 납세의무 성립일 현재 소유 주식에 관하여 주주권을 행사할 수 있는 지위에 있으면 족하다고 할 것이다(대법원 2003. 7. 8. 선고 2001두5354 판결 취지 참조).(나) 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, ① 원고가 소외 회사의 발행주식 총수 중 80%에 해당하는 이 사건 주식을 취득하였고, 이러한 사실이 소외 회사의 주주 또는 출자명부 및 주식 등 변동상황명세서에 기재되어 있는 이상, 원고는 일응 이 사건 주식에 관한 권리를 실질적으로 행사할 수 있는 지위에 있었던 것으로 봄이 상당하고, 원고가 소외 회사의 과점주주로서 이 사건 체납세액에 대하여 제2차 납세의무를 부담함에 있어서는 반드시 원고가 구체적으로 소외 회사의 경영에 관여하였다거나 이 사건 주식에 관한 권리를 현실적으로 행사한 실적이 있어야만 할 필요는 없는 점, ② 갑 9호증의 기재만으로는 원고가 소외 회사의 대표이사인 한○○에 대한 1억 5,000만 원의 채권을 담보하기 위하여 이 사건 주식을 양도담보로 받은 것이라고 보기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거도 없으며, 원고 스스로의 주장에 의하더라도 원고가 투자하였던 한○○ 운영의 ○○○○○○○가 2001.말경 엄청난 부채를 지게 되어 2002.초경 폐업하게 되었고 이에 따라 원고는 한○○이 더 이상 사업을 확대하여 문제를 야기시키지 못하도록 하는 의미에서 이 사건 주식을 원고 명의로 이전받게 된 것이라는 취지인바, 그러한 주장 자체로도 원고는 경우에 따라서는 이 사건 주식에 관한 권리를 실제로 행사하여 소외 회사의 경영을 제어하려고 했던 것으로 보일뿐만 아니라, 설령 원고의 주장을 그대로 받아들여 원고가 이 사건 주식에 대한 양도담보권자에 불과하다고 하더라도, 주식 양도담보의 경우 양도담보권자는 대외적으로 주식의 소유권자로서 이를 적법하게 처분할 수 있는 권한을 보유하고 있고(대법원 1995. 7. 28. 선고 93다61338 판결 참조), 또한 소외 회사에 대한 관계에 있어서는 양도담보권자가 주주의 자격을 갖는 것이어서 의결권 기타의 공익권도 소외 회사에 대한 관계에서는 담보권자인 원고에게 귀속한다 할 것이므로(대법원 1992. 5. 26. 선고 92다84 판결 참조), 원고는 소외 회사 발행주식 총수의 100분의 51 이상인 이 사건 주식에 관한 권리를 실질적으로 행사할 수 있는 지위에 있는 자에 해당한다고 봄이 상당한 점 등의 여러 사정에 비추어 보면, 원고는 법 제 39조 제1항 제2호 가목에서 정한 바와 같이 소외 회사의 발행주식 총수의 80%인 이 사건 주식에 관한 권리를 실질적으로 행사하는 과점주주라고 봄이 상당하다.(다) 따라서, 이와 전제를 달리하는 원고의 첫 번째 주장은 이유 없다.

(2) Judgment on the second assertion by the Plaintiff

On November 7, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an objection (tax evasion report) with the Defendant to request the Defendant to investigate the suspected issuance of false sales tax invoices, etc. by Nonparty Company and its counterpart on or around March 2005, and the Defendant deemed the amount equivalent to KRW 625,670,00 in total as the omitted amount in filing a sales return by Nonparty Company and its counterpart on or around March 2005, and notified the Non-Party Company of the rectification and rectification of the value-added tax and corporate tax equivalent to the amount in arrears in this case as seen above. Accordingly, the Plaintiff merely filed an objection based on the trend, such as that the purchase is relatively low compared to the sales amount of the Non-Party Company and the receipt and payment of the price was not clearly identified, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s second assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s disposition of imposing this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the secondary taxpayer for the overdue tax amount of the non-party company is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s claim is rejected as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

List of Imposition

Reversion Year

(1) The initial corporate tax

(2) the corrected corporate tax;

(3) Value-added tax;

202

87,734,30 won

9,353,380 won

10 1 1

17,969,450 won

2. Initials

34,891,400 won

203

13,111,160 won

2,177,730 won

10 1 1

595,840 won

2. Initials

2,698,600 won

2. Initials

3,377,040 won

204

28,129,060 won

3,644,690 won

10 1 1

17,503,200 won

2. Initials

6,586,270 won

Total

128,974,550 won

15,175,800 won

83,621,800 won

Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes

○ The secondary tax liability of an investor under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7930 of April 28, 2006)

(1) Where the property of a corporation (excluding a corporation whose stocks are listed on the Korea Stock Exchange) is insufficient to cover the national tax, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears that are imposed on or to be paid by such corporation, any person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs as of the date on which the national tax liability is established shall assume secondary tax liability for such shortage: Provided, That in cases of an oligopolistic stockholder under subparagraph 2, the limit of the amount calculated by multiplying the amount obtained by dividing the shortage by the total number of outstanding stocks (excluding non-voting stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) of the corporation or the total amount of investment, by the number of oligopolistic stockholders owned (excluding non-voting stocks) or investment amount (in cases of an oligopolistic stockholder under subparagraph

1. General partners;

2. An oligopolistic stockholder who falls under any of the following items:

(a) A person who actually exercises the rights to 51/100 or more stocks or shares out of the total number of issued stocks or investments of the relevant corporation;

(b) An honorary chairperson, president, vice president, senior executive director, executive director, director, or any other person who actually controls the operation of the corporation, notwithstanding the title thereof;

(c) The spouse (including the person in de facto marital relations) of the persons under items (a) and (b) and the lineal ascendants and descendants sharing their living

(2) The term “ oligopolistic stockholder” in paragraph (1) 2 means a person who is a relative or has other special relations with a stockholder or partner with limited liability as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and whose total amount of stocks held or investments is 51/100 or more of the total number of stocks issued or investments of the juristic person concerned.

○ Requirements for oligopolistic shareholders under General Rule 39-0, 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

(1) In order to erase the secondary tax liability to a stockholder of a corporation, it is required that an oligopolistic stockholder has invested in the corporation, such as payment of shares, or he/she has participated in the operation such as attending a general meeting of shareholders, and that the corporation is in a position to substantially control the corporation, and the same shall not be deemed an oligopolistic

(2) If 51/100 or more of the total number of stocks owned or the total amount of equity investment of a specific stockholder and his/her relatives or other specially related shareholders are held by any other stockholder except the specific stockholder, any relative or other specially related shareholders shall be deemed oligopolistic shareholders.

○ Determination of oligopolistic shareholders of general rules 39-0, 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and determination of oligopolistic shareholders is to calculate whether the occupied ratio is 51% or more by aggregating the stocks or investments of shareholders, limited partners, and their relatives or other persons having special relations as of the date the liability to pay national taxes arises, and if this requirement is satisfied, all of the parties concerned shall be deemed oligopolistic shareholders.