Whether the notice of designation of the secondary taxpayer who is deemed an oligopolistic stockholder is appropriate;

In addition, it seems that the seal imprint will be transferred on the basis of the request for cooperation in the establishment of the company, and there is no proof that there is no fact that the capital has been paid for shares;

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment of Contributors)

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On July 23, 2007, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiffs as secondary taxpayers of ○○ Logistics Co., Ltd.; (b) imposed corporate tax of KRW 18,81,340 for each business year 2006 on the Plaintiffs; (c) KRW 8,950,260 for value-added tax of February 2, 2006; and (d) imposed additional tax of KRW 56,430 for the above corporate tax; (b) increased additional tax of KRW 226,570 for the above corporate tax; and (c) cancelled the demand for payment of additional tax of KRW 268,50 for the above value-added tax (the purport of the claim stated in the complaint states that the Defendant’s notification of the payment of additional tax, etc. is not a disposition of imposition; (d) sought revocation of the above demand for payment

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 1, 4-1, 2, 1, 2, and 6, respectively:

A. The ○○○ Logistics Co., Ltd. (the “○○○ Transportation Co., Ltd. prior to the change: hereinafter “○○ Transportation Co., Ltd.”) is a stock company established on November 10, 2003 with the purpose of “truck forwarding business, shipping storage business, etc.,” and the total number of issued and outstanding shares is 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 as of December 31, 2006.

Name

Number of shares (number of shares)

Value (cost)

Equity ratio (%)

Relation

○ ○

6,000

30,000,000

30

○ ○

6,000

30,000,000

30

○ ○

8,000

40,000,000

40

B. The non-party company failed to pay corporate tax of KRW 65,581,00 in 206 and value-added tax of KRW 30,729,00 in 206 for the business year of 2006. The defendant decided that the non-party company, the main taxpayer, was not capable of paying the above delinquent tax as its property. As of the date of establishing the main tax liability, the plaintiffs' designation of the plaintiffs as the secondary taxpayer of the non-party company on July 23, 2007 as the second taxpayer of the non-party company's corporate tax of KRW 18,81,340 in 206 and KRW 8,950,260 in 206 and the above additional tax of KRW 56,430 in 206 and KRW 260 in 200 in 206, the above additional tax of the corporate tax of KRW 56,426,260 in 20,50 in 208.

C. The Plaintiffs filed a request for review on October 30, 2007 regarding the instant disposition, but was dismissed on December 3, 2007.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiffs were registered as shareholders, directors, auditors, etc. necessary for the incorporation of the non-party company formally by stealing the name by ○○○○○○ (the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○’s accommodation, Plaintiff’s ○○○○○’s birth) and did not actually exercise the right to shares, and did not participate in the management of the company as directors and auditors. In particular, after reporting the closure of ○○ Transportation on November 29, 2005, the Plaintiffs did not know of the trade name change from ○○○ Transportation to ○○ Logistics, and the change of representative director, etc., and thus, the Plaintiffs did not fall under the oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, but the instant disposition based on the premise that

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each part of the evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8-1 through 7, 9-9, 10, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 5, 14, and 16:

(1) The non-party company initially started the business on November 10, 2003, which was established and started on November 28, 2005, and closed the business on November 28, 2005, but changed the trade name to ○○ Logistics on May 15, 2006, and closed the business on May 15, 2006.

(2) The ○○○○○’s father’s father, a representative director of the non-party company, was appointed on November 27, 2003, and resigned on November 27, 2003. The ○○○○○ was appointed as the representative director on April 26, 2006 and resigned on May 17, 2006. The ○○○○ was appointed as the representative director on April 26, 2006 and resigned on May 17, 2006. The ○○○○○ was appointed as the representative director on May 17, 2006 and resigned on September 12, 2006. The ○○○○○ was appointed as the representative director on September 12, 2006. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs was appointed as the Plaintiff (○○○) and the auditor (Plaintiff○○○) immediately after the non-party company was established.

(3) The change in the permit for the trucking transport brokerage business of the non-party company is as follows.

Date

Changes

Name of the business operator

Representative Director;

April 13, 1998

New Permission

○ Transportation Corporation

○ ○

January 17, 2001

Change of Representative

○ Transportation Corporation

○ ○

November 19, 2003

Change of Business Operator

Non-Party Company (○○ Transportation)

○ ○

May 4, 2006

Change of Representative

Non-Party Company (○○ Logistics)

○ ○

(4) The ○○○○○○’s father’s father, ○○○, was appointed on March 25, 1998 to the director of the ○○○ Transportation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○”) and retired on March 30, 2001. The ○○○○ was appointed on March 25, 1998 to the auditor of ○○ Transportation, and retired on March 30, 2001. The ○○○○ was retired from office on March 30, 2001. The ○○○○ was retired on March 30, 201 to the representative director of ○○ Transportation, and was retired on November 10, 2003.

(5) The plaintiffs filed a complaint with ○○○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○○ registered as the shareholders or executive officers of the non-party company by stealing their names among those known to her, on September 27, 2007, on the grounds of fabrication of private documents, uttering of falsified documents, and fraudulent entry in the original text of a notarial deed. However, the aforementioned persons as a result of the prosecutor’s investigation conducted a non-prosecution disposition against the non-party who was suspected of being suspected of having any suspicion due to lack of evidence around March 2008 (in particular, ○○ stated in the above case that the plaintiffs registered the non-party company as the shareholders

(6) Meanwhile, at the time of incorporation of the non-party company, Plaintiff ○○ subscribed 6,00 shares as promoters, and Plaintiff ○○ subscribed for shares of 6,000 shares and subscribed for shares of 6,000 shares, each of the above acquisitions was made by a lawful document with the seal affixed by the Plaintiffs.

D. Determination

(1) Article 39(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "a person who is a relative or has a special relationship with a shareholder or partner with limited liability and whose total amount of stocks held or investments is not less than 51/100 of total number of stocks issued or total amount of investments made by the juristic person in question."

In such a case, whether it is an oligopolistic shareholder shall be determined by whether it is a member of a group of stocks owned by the majority, and even if there is no fact involved in the management of the company, it shall not be determined solely by the fact that it is not an oligopolistic shareholder, and the fact of ownership of stocks shall be proved by the data such as the register of shareholders, the statement of stock movement, or the register of corporate register, etc. However, even if it appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, if there are circumstances such as the taxation authority stolen the name of the shareholder or registered in the name other than the name of the real owner, it shall not be deemed to be a shareholder only in the name of the shareholder, but it shall be proved by the nominal owner who asserts that he is not a shareholder (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615, Jul. 9, 2004).

(2) As of the date of establishment of the principal tax liability in the status of the non-party company’s shareholding (the date of December 31, 2006), the fact that the plaintiffs are shareholders of 12,000 share out of 20,000 shares issued by the above company is a 60% shareholder out of the total number of shares issued by the above company is seen above. The plaintiffs constitute a paternal relationship within the sixth degree of relationship with each other, which constitutes a relative or a person with a special relationship as prescribed by the Presidential Decree under Article 39(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the circumstance that the plaintiffs used their names by theft or are not the actual share owner

In light of the records of the change in the permit for trucking transport business, the details of the transfer of executives and employees of ○○○ and the non-party company, and the relationship between ○○○ and the plaintiffs, ○○○○○ does not seem to have any doubt as to whether ○○○○ is not operating the ○○ and the non-party company as the actual owner of the trucking transport business. However, upon request, ○○○○’s cooperation for the establishment of the non-party company appears to have delivered the seal imprints, etc. to the non-party company. In addition, in light of the fact that ○○○ merely controlled and managed the non-party company, and there is no specific proof as to the investment relation, such as that ○○○’s investment in the shares was made by ○○○○○’s funds, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiffs’ respective statements on the 15,56,7,8-1 through 7, Gap’s evidence Nos. 11 through 13-11, 11-2, and 1-1-1-2.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Related statutes

○ Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 39 Secondary Liability for Tax Payment of Contributors

(1) Where the property of a corporation (excluding a corporation which has listed stocks on the securities market under Article 2 (1) of the Korea Securities and Futures Exchange Act) is insufficient to cover the national taxes, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears imposed on or to be paid by such corporation, the person falling under any of the following subparagraphs as of the date on which the liability to pay national taxes is established shall be subject to the secondary liability to pay such shortage: Provided, That in the case of oligopolistic stockholders under subparagraph 2, the limit of the amount calculated by multiplying the amount obtained by dividing the shortage by the total number of stocks issued (excluding non-voting stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or total amount of investment of such corporation by the number of oligopolistic stockholders owned (excluding non-voting stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in this

1. General partners;

2. An oligopolistic stockholder who falls under any of the following items:

(a) A person who exercises a substantial right over the stocks or investment shares in excess of 51/100 of the total issued stocks or total investments of the relevant corporation;

(b) An honorary chairperson, president, vice president, senior managing director, managing director, director, or any other person who actually controls the management of the corporation regardless of the name thereof;

(c) The spouse (including the person in de facto marital relations) of the persons under items (a) and (b) and the lineal ascendants and descendants sharing their living

(2) The term "major stockholder" in paragraph (1) 2 means a person who is a relative or has other special relations with a stockholder or partner with limited liability as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the total sum of stocks owned or investment amount of which is 51/100 or more of the total number of stocks issued or investment amount of the juristic person concerned (hereinafter referred to as "major stockholder"). (The previous amendment by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006)

○ Enforcement Decree of Framework Act on National Taxes

The term “relatives or other persons having special relations as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in Article 20, Article 39 (2) of the Act on the Scope of Relatives and Other Persons having Special Relations means those who fall under one of the following subparagraphs: Provided, That in case where a stockholder or a partner with limited liability is a woman, excluding the cases in subparagraphs 9 through 13, it shall

1. Any paternal blood relationship within the six degrees and the wife of any paternal blood relationship within the four degrees;

2. Husbands and children of any paternal blood relationship within the third degrees;

3. Any maternal blood relationship within the third degrees and her spouse and children;

4. Any paternal blood relationship within the second degrees of the wife and her spouse;

5. The spouse (including the person in de facto marital relations);

6. A lineal ascendant of the birth parents of an adoptee;

7. Adopted children, their spouses, and lineal descendants of both families;

8. The natural mother of a person born out of wedlock;

9. Any employee and other persons in an employment relationship;

10. Any person who maintains his livelihood and who shares the livelihood by the money or other properties of a stockholder or partner with limited liability;

11. Where any stockholder or partner with limited liability is an individual, a corporation in which the total number of stocks or amount of investments (hereinafter referred to as the “number of stocks owned, etc.”) owned or made by such stockholder or partner with limited liability and other persons related to them under subparagraphs 1 through 10 is not less than 50/100 of the total number of stocks issued or the total amount of investments made (hereinafter referred to

12. Where any stockholder or partner with limited liability is a corporation, any corporation whose number of stocks, etc. of the said corporation is not less than 50/100 of the total number of stocks issued by the said corporation and any corporation whose number of stocks, etc. is not less than 50/100 of the total number of stocks issued by the relevant corporation (

13. The non-profit corporation in which the stockholders or partners with limited liability and persons in the relationship under subparagraphs 1 through 8 occupy a majority of directors or one of them establishes: Provided, That it shall be limited to the case where he owns not less than 20/100 of the total number of stocks issued, etc