Where there are circumstances such as registration in a name other than the name of the actual owner, it shall not be deemed that the name alone constitutes a shareholder.

The plaintiff is not the actual shareholder of the shares of this case in the case of the most transfer without permission, such as transfer of the name to another account because he had never known the process of transferring shares at all, and the disposition of this case must be revoked as it is unlawful.

2013Guhap170 Revocation of revocation of designation as the secondary taxpayer

GuAA

Daejeon Head of the District Tax Office

September 4, 2013

October 30, 2013

1. On December 27, 2011, the Defendant designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of BB, and revoked the imposition of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax for the business year 2009, the corporate tax for the business year 2010, the OOO of the value-added tax for the second period of two years in 2010, the OOO of the value-added tax for the second period of two years in 2010, the OO of the value-added tax for the second period of two years in 2010, and the value-added tax for the first period of one year in 2011.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. BB (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”) on June 11, 2007, is a company established by investing 6,000 shares (60%) and 4,000 shares (40%) of this company, each of which is the spouse of the Plaintiff, and ASEAN, respectively. BB (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”). On September 30, 2009, the entire shares of this case were transferred to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “first shares”) 4,000 shares of this case, each of which was held on September 30, 209 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant shares”), 2,00 shares were transferred from the Plaintiff to E and EF, 200 shares (hereinafter referred to as “O20 shares transfer”), O20 shares shares of this case were transferred to 20,000 shares in arrears, and 200,000 shares of this case were transferred to PO20,000 shares in each of the instant company (hereinafter referred to as value-added shares transfer”).

Taxation Period

Date of establishment of tax liability;

Amount of delinquent tax

Corporate Tax

209 Business year

December 31, 2009

OOO

2010 Business year

December 31, 2010

OOO

Value-added Tax

2010

December 31, 2010

OOO

1, 2011

June 30, 2011

OOO

Total

OOO

C. Following the transfer of each of the instant shares, the EE and Park G HaHF had the appearance of holding 40%, 20%, 20%, and 20% of the shares of the instant company as of the date each liability for the payment of the instant delinquent national taxes was established. However, the Defendant determined that the remainder 2, 3 shares other than the transfer of shares is the most transfer, and the Defendant filed a notice of tax payment with the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 27, 201, on which the Plaintiff and the instant company owned 60% and 40% of each of the shares of the instant company (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 2011) were deemed to be an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 2011).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 8-1 through 3, Eul evidence 2-1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder, as well as the transfer of shares 2 and 3, is merely the most recent transfer of shares, and thus, the actual shareholder of the instant shares is D, and the Plaintiff is not an actual shareholder.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

An oligopolistic shareholder with secondary tax liability under Article 39 (1) 2 (c) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is sufficient if he/she is the spouse of a person falling under items (a) and (b) or a person who is a lineal ascendant or descendant living with him/her, and it does not need to be a person who actually controls the management of the corporation by participating in the management of the corporation, or a person who actually exercises the rights to the stocks exceeding 50/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding stocks of the corporation concerned. Thus, even if he/she does not participate in the management of the corporation in detail, even if he/she appears to be a single shareholder in light of the data, such as the list of stockholders, statement of stock transfer, or register the name of a person who is not the real owner, the actual shareholder cannot be deemed to fall under the shareholder merely under the name of the oligopolistic shareholder (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615, Jul.

"OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O- of this case) were deposited in the plaintiff's account on October 13, 209. On the same day, the plaintiff transferred OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O- of this case's shares to the plaintiff under the name of the plaintiff's name, but the above O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O- of this case's shares were transferred again to the plaintiff's account of this case's 2nd day, since the plaintiff's transfer of the shares in this case's name of this case's O-O-O.

Therefore, we decide to accept the Plaintiff’s claim of this case, and decide as per Disposition.