The designation of the second taxpayer cannot be denied in the case of the lump sum payment of shares, so the designation of the second taxpayer is legitimate.

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of designation of the secondary tax liability is merely a nominal holder and was not in a position to exercise shareholder's right. However, the plaintiff paid shares in the lump sum, and the validity cannot be denied even in the case of the lump sum payment. Therefore, the designation of the secondary taxpayer against the plaintiff, who is the oligopolistic shareholder, is legitimate in light of the fact that the shareholder cannot be deemed the same as the next shareholder who borrowed only the name.

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment of Contributors)

2011Revocation of disposition of revocation of value-added tax

Park XX

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

September 28, 2011

October 26, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of value-added tax amounting to KRW 56,261,230, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on February 26, 2010, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Disposition of imposition on the Defendant’s ○○○ Abn (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant’s company”).

(a) Disposition: Imposition of value-added tax of 82,58,128 won for the second quarter of 2007;

(2) Grounds for disposal: Non-deduction of input tax amount related to land acquisition; and

B. The instant disposition taken against the Plaintiff on February 26, 2010 by the Defendant

(1) The Plaintiff served as the representative director of the non-party company from October 6, 2005 to January 30, 2009, and held 66.67% of the issued and outstanding shares on December 31, 2007, which is the date when the principal tax liability is established.

(2) The content of the instant disposition: as the non-party company did not pay the above value-added tax, value-added tax is imposed in proportion to the shares owned by the plaintiff who is the secondary taxpayer in proportion to the shares owned by the plaintiff.

(3) Grounds for disposition: The plaintiff bears the secondary liability for tax payment as the party of the non-party company pursuant to Article 39(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9263, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Framework Act on National Taxes").

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on April 13, 2010 with the Tax Tribunal on August 17, 2010, but was dismissed on November 23, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

The plaintiff is not an oligopolistic shareholder with a secondary tax liability, because the plaintiff is merely a nominal holder and was not in a position to exercise shareholders' rights.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. In light of the legislative purport and amendment process under Article 39 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the meaning of the proviso of paragraph (1) and subparagraph 2 (a) of the same paragraph shall be determined by the secondary tax liability of all the oligopolistic shareholders who are in a position to exercise rights over 51/100 or more of the total number of issued and outstanding shares among oligopolistic shareholders under Article 39 (2) of the same Act: Provided, That it is reasonable to view that the scope of their liability is limited within the scope of their shares; however, one of the oligopolistic shareholders is not required to actually exercise rights over 51/10 or more of the shares (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du19105, Jan. 10, 208; 2006Du19105, Oct. 10, 2008; 2000Du8384, Apr. 38, 2015).

On the other hand, the facts of ownership of shares should be proved by the tax authorities through the data, such as the list of shareholders, the statement of stock transfer or the certified transcript of register, etc. of a company. However, even in cases where a shareholder appears to be a one-time shareholder in light of the above data, where there are circumstances such that the actual shareholder was stolen or registered in the name other than the real shareholder, it cannot be deemed as a shareholder only in such name, but it should be proved by the nominal owner who asserts that he is not a shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du1615, Jul. 9, 2004; 2008Du983, Sept. 11, 2008).

B. As of December 31, 2007, which is the date on which the main tax liability is established with respect to the corporate tax for the business year 2007 and the value-added tax for the second period for the non-party company, the plaintiff is a shareholder of 40,000 share out of the total number of shares issued by the company of this case 60,000, which is 46.67% of the total number of shares issued by the company of this case. Thus, in light of the legal principles examined earlier, the plaintiff must prove that the plaintiff is not the actual share owner.

살피건대, 원고가 단순한 명의대여자에 불과하고 주주권을 행사할 수 있는 지위에 없었다는 취지의 원고 주장사실에 부합하는 듯한 증거로는, 갑 제15호증(사실확인서)의 기재, 증인 최CC의 증언이 있으나, 한편 ① 증인 최CC는, 소외 회사는 소외 주식회사 ☆☆(당초 '주식회사 씨앤☆☆'이었으나 회생절차를 거친 후 현재 상호를 '주식회사 ☆☆'이라고 변경하였는데, 이하 상호변경 전후를 통틀어 '☆☆'이라 한다)이 소외 회사를 설립하였고, 원고는 명의만을 대여해준 것으로 알고 있다고 진술하였는데, 이에 반하여 ☆☆의 대표이사 우EE은 시공사 및 장ㆍ단기대여금의 대여채권자의 지위로서 소외 회사의 대출금에 대한 지급보증 및 관리감독업무를 수행한 바 있으나 소외 회사의 실질주주로서 권리를 행사한 사실이 없다고 확인한 점(을 제5호증), ② 원고는 소외 회사를 설립하기 위하여 소외 △△마운틴해운 주식회사로부터 3억 원을 차용하여 주금을 납입한 후, 소외 회사가 원고에게 3억 원을 가지급금 형식으로 지급하여 위 차용금을 변제한 것으로 보이는데, 이와 같이 회사를 설립함에 있어 일시적인 차입에 의하여 주금납입의 형식을 취하여 회사를 설립한 후 곧 그 납입금을 인출하여 차입금을 변제하는 이른바 주금의 가장납입의 경우에도 주금납입의 효력을 부인할 수는 없는 것이므로, 그 주주를 실질상의 주식인수인에게 명의만을 빌려 준 차명주주와 동일시 할 수는 없는 점(대법원 1994.3.28. 자 93마1916 결정 등 참조), ③ 원고가 구체적으로 소외 회사경영에 관여한 사실이 없다고 하더라도 그러한 사정만으로 원고가 이 사건 회사의 실질 주주가 아니라고 볼 수 없는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 원고의 주장에 부합하는 증거들만으로는 원고의 주장을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으며, 오히려 원고는 주주권을 행사할 수 있는 지위에 있다고 봄이 상당하므로, 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.