2. Invalidity of the designation of the secondary taxpayer

Even though the defendant's mistake of the plaintiff as an oligopolistic stockholder of the above company as to the disposition of this case, such mistake alone cannot be deemed as a serious and obvious defect which is grounds for invalidation.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s cause of action is as follows.

원고의 동서인 소외 정ㅇ구는 1976. 5. 25. 자본금15,000,000원을 투자하여 섬유피복제조 및 판매업을 목적으로 하는 소외 ㅇㅇ산업주식회사를 설립하여 그 자신이 위 회사의 소유와 경영을 지배하는 소위 1인회사의 형태로 위 회사를 운영해 왔는바, 위 회사의 자본금은 1976. 7. 24.에 금 15,000,000원, 같은해 12. 24.에 금20,000,000원, 1981. 10. 19.에 50,000,000원이 각 증자되어 1981. 12. 31. 현재 도합 금100,000,000원이 되었는데, 위 정부구는 1976. 12. 24. 금20,000,000원을 증자할 때에 금6,150,000원, 1981. 10. 19. 금50,000,000원을 출자할 때에 금18,850,000원 도합 금25,000,000원을 원고가 각 출자한 것처럼 원고 몰래 위 회사의 주식대장에 기재함으로써 원고는 위 회사의 명목상의 주주가 되었다.

On April 2, 1987, the Defendant imposed national taxes on the above company on the attached list, but the above company was bankrupt and the company did not own any property to be appropriated for national taxes, and recognized the Plaintiff as an oligopolistic shareholder under subparagraph 2 of Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as of the date when the liability to pay national taxes was established, and notified the Plaintiff of the designation of the Plaintiff as the second taxpayer of the above company and the payment of the national taxes to the Plaintiff.

However, the above Jung-gu registered the plaintiff as a shareholder of the above company for convenience while operating the above company, and the plaintiff did not have invested in the above company and received dividends, and there is no fact that he did not participate in the above company's business, so the disposition of this case which recognized the plaintiff as an oligopolistic shareholder of the above company as an oligopolistic shareholder of the above company is null and void.

2. First, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case is unlawful since it did not undergo an examination and a request for adjudication under Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, so the principle of administrative appeal transfer is applied only to a revocation suit for which administrative disposition is revoked or modified, and that it does not apply to a lawsuit seeking nullification of administrative disposition. In other words, the defendant's above assertion is groundless.

3. The following facts are examined as to the existence of the grounds for invalidation of the Plaintiff’s claim. If there is a defect that misleads the Plaintiff’s principal of the facts about the taxation disposition, even if such defect is serious, if it is not clear, the taxation disposition can be revoked, and it cannot be deemed null and void. Thus, even if the Plaintiff is not the actual shareholder of the above company, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is registered as the shareholder in the shareholder registry despite the Plaintiff’s absence of substantial shareholder of the above company, and even if there is a defect that the Defendant misleads the Plaintiff as the oligopolistic shareholder of the above company based on such error, even if the shareholder registry, etc., which is the basis for the mistake, lacks external appearance and lacks objective proof of its establishment or authenticity, it cannot be deemed that the mistake of the facts due to the above taxation data, which is not an objective one that could objectively suspect its establishment or authenticity (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu944, Jun. 23, 197). Thus, even if the Defendant misleads the Plaintiff as the oligopolistic shareholder of the above company, the Plaintiff’s allegation is groundless without merit.

4. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.