beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.
Defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of the background of the disposition of the court of first instance, the determination of the defendant’s main defense, the plaintiff’s assertion, relevant laws and regulations, and the facts of recognition is the same as the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text
On January 11, 2011, 201, the Plaintiff’s notice of tax payment was removed from the Plaintiff’s representative director on January 11, 201, and the place where O received the notice of tax payment was not the Plaintiff’s domicile but the Plaintiff’s business relation to the Plaintiff’s business. As the Plaintiff’s receipt of the notice of tax payment was “YY 105 R cafeteria”, the Plaintiff’s first instance court’s first instance court’s 7th to 10th, first instance court’s 7th, first instance court’s 7th, first instance court’s 7th, first instance court’s 7th 7th 7th 7th 10,000,000 won that the Plaintiff paid to F, etc. as the purchase price of J’s shares. As such, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed the Plaintiff’s actual shareholder.
2. Determination
A. First, determination on the first argument is generally accepted that a special purpose company (SPC) is established without human and material capital by meeting only the minimum requirements for capital investment to achieve a temporary objective. Therefore, in order for a special purpose company to achieve its purpose of establishment, it has a minimum amount of property invested to the extent required by the law of the place of establishment.
The mere fact that an employee of a company which has established a special purpose company concurrently operates or controls a special purpose company by holding an officer or employee of a special purpose company concurrently is recognized as an abuse of legal personality in violation of the principle of good faith.