Cases where a person who is merely a stockholder does not constitute an oligopolistic stockholder who is liable to pay the second tax;

The non-party company is a company of the non-party who is the plaintiff's sole investment, and the plaintiff was registered as a shareholder in the shareholders' name group in order to establish the form of a corporation, and the plaintiff was not involved in the management of the company because he was unaware of the fact that he became a shareholder of the company and was not involved in the management of the company, the plaintiff shall not be deemed to be an oligopolistic shareholder since he was merely a shareholder in the form of the company and did not acquire ownership or participate in the management of

Article 39(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Plaintiff

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 81Gu139 delivered on February 9, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held on December 18, 1980 that the defendant owned 30% of the total shares issued by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, and the non-party 3, who own 500% of the total shares issued by the company, owned 30% of 51% or more of the total shares of the company, and owned 92.5% or more of the total shares issued by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who are owned by the non-party 3, respectively, as the non-party 1 was designated as the second taxpayer of the non-party company's delinquent national tax of 9,213,918, and the seizure of the real estate stated in the attached list of the judgment below, which is owned by the plaintiff, at the time of its incorporation, and thereafter, the non-party 2, the representative director of the non-party company did not have any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the shareholder's ownership of the company.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)