Whether a person registered in the register of shareholders of a corporation in the register of shareholders falls under an oligopolistic shareholder who bears secondary tax liability (negative)

In order to have a shareholder of a corporation bear the secondary tax liability pursuant to subparagraph 2 of Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is necessary to have an oligopolistic shareholder be in a position to substantially control the operation of the corporation, and only the reasons registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders of the corporation in the form of a shareholder cannot be said to be an oligopolistic shareholder

Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu403 Delivered on January 13, 1981

Lee Jae-hee, Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu254 delivered on December 2, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order to impose the secondary tax liability on the shareholders of a corporation pursuant to Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it requires that the oligopolistic shareholders be in a position to substantially control the operation of the corporation, and only the reasons registered as shareholders in the register of shareholders of the corporation in the form of a shareholder cannot be said to be an oligopolistic shareholder (see Supreme Court Decision 80Nu403, Jan. 13, 1981).

According to the court below's decision, the court below held that the disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff was an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company after the plaintiff was registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders of the non-party company at the time when the liability to pay national taxes imposed on the non-party 1 was established. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and it cannot be found that there was an error of law such as the theory of lawsuit

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)