The method of determining whether a person who owns the largest number of stocks among the shareholders of Article 39(1)2(a) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes falls under "the person who owns the largest number of stocks";

Article 39(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5579 of Dec. 28, 1998)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

In this case

The director of the tax office

Gwangju High Court Decision 2001Nu105 decided May 9, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Article 39 (1) 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5579 of Dec. 28, 1998) provides that a person who holds the largest number of stocks or made the largest investment in stocks among oligopolistic shareholders [Article 39 (1) 2] of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5579 of Dec. 28, 1998] and a person who actually controls the management of a corporation [Article 39 (1) (b)] shall be liable for secondary tax liability. Whether a person is a "person who owns the largest number of stocks" under the above item (a) shall be determined according to the formal criteria of holding the largest number of stocks among oligopolistic shareholders, and whether a group of stocks owned by the majority of the relevant corporation, which is the requirement of oligopolistic shareholders, actually exercises the right to a share exceeding 51/100 of the total issued stocks (see Supreme Court Decision 201Du5354 of Jul. 8,

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized 60% of the total issued and outstanding shares of the non-party 2 as 9% of the total issued and outstanding shares of the non-party 5 company's 20% of the total issued and outstanding shares of the non-party 9 company's 20% of the total issued and outstanding shares of the non-party 9 company's 20% of the total issued and outstanding shares of the non-party 9 company's 20% of the total issued and outstanding shares of the non-party 5 company's 9% of the total issued and outstanding shares of the non-party 9 company's 20% of the total issued and outstanding shares of the non-party 9 company's 9% of the total issued and outstanding shares of the non-party 2 company's 9% of the total issued and outstanding shares of the non-party 2 company's 9% of the total issued and outstanding shares of the non-party 9 company's 9% of the above 60% shares in its name.

In light of the above legal principles, relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the records, all of these measures of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff.

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.

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)