Cho High 2012 Mine1233 (Law No. 11. 2012)

Only for the reasons that a corporation is registered as a general partner in the corporation's registry, the tax liability may not be imposed.

Although registration is made as a member of a corporation, a disposition imposing secondary tax liability is illegal because it was registered as a member of a corporation not in a position to actually participate in the operation of the corporation, but in a form that was registered as a member of the corporation.

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Guhap2856 Value-Added Tax, etc.

PostalAA

The director of Gwangju Tax Office

January 17, 2013

February 20, 2013

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax, wage and salary income tax, and corporate tax against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

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

It is the same as the disposition.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. BB A. The joint corporation of certified judicial scrivenerss (hereinafter referred to as “foreign corporation”) was established on April 3, 2008 for the purpose of certified judicial scrivener business, etc. on September 9, 201 (Grounds: the consent of all the members of August 22, 201).

B. As the Defendant imposed wage and salary income tax, corporate tax, and value-added tax on the non-party corporation, the non-party corporation did not pay the above wage and salary tax by the payment deadline, the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff who is a member of the non-party corporation as a non-party corporation as a non-party-free member on the date indicated in the same list and designated as the second taxpayer.

C. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of the total amount of KRW 000,000, such as wage and salary income tax in the column for the amount of designation in the same list on the date stated in the attached Form 1’s disposition date (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on November 7, 201, but was dismissed, and March 2012.

2. The Tax Tribunal requested for a trial but was dismissed on May 11 of the same year.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 3, and 4 (including the number number if any), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff registered the non-party corporation as a member of the non-party corporation in the form to establish and maintain the non-party corporation upon the Kim E-E's request, and there was no fact that the plaintiff invested in or participated in the management of the non-party corporation. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be actually a member of the non-party corporation. Therefore, the second tax liability under Article 39 (1) 1 of

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

(c)a recognition;

1) The KimE, while working as a court’s individual rehabilitation commissioner, decided to establish a joint corporation of certified judicial scrivenerss specializing in individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy after retirement from office around 2007.

2) However, in order to incorporate a joint corporation of certified judicial scriveners, five or more certified judicial scriveners are required pursuant to Article 35 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act, and two or more of them are required to be engaged in the affairs of certified judicial scrivener for not less than 10 years, and KimE requested that the plaintiff, who was a usual relative, become a certified judicial scrivener in the form of a member, who was a certified judicial scrivener in the form of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff accepted this and sent documents necessary

3) On April 3, 2008, KimE registered that the representative certified judicial scrivener of April 3, 2008 constituted the non-party corporation, establishing the non-party corporation, and that both the investment 5,00,000 won were invested by himself, and that the KimE in the corporate register was 000 won, and that the plaintiff, the KimF, the riverG, and the SongH invested 000 won, respectively.

4) At the time of the establishment of the non-party corporation, the non-party corporation registered the 000 OO2 in Gwangju Dong-gu as its principal office, the 000 OO2 in Gwangju, the O200 in Seoul, the O200 in Seoul, the O200 in the O200 in the O2, the O200 in the Jeonnam, the O200 in the Jeonnam-nam, and the O00 in the O200 in the Jeonnam-nam, the O200 in the Y2, and the O200 in the Y2, the O200 in the Y20, the O200 in the Y2, and the O200 in the Y2, the O200 in the office of the

5) Even after the incorporation of the non-party corporation, the Plaintiff operated the instant office on a separate account, such as filing a global income tax report on the basis of the operating income of the instant office, and filing a dividend, etc. from the non-party corporation on the basis of the amount of investment.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 16, testimony of witness Kim E, and purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Article 47(2) of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act provides that the provisions concerning unlimited partnership companies in the Commercial Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the joint corporation of certified judicial scriveners, except as otherwise provided for in this Act, and Article 212(1) of the Commercial Act provides that each partner shall be jointly and severally liable for payment if it is impossible to fully pay the company's obligations with the assets of the unlimited partnership company. Meanwhile, in order to impose the secondary liability for tax payment on the general partner of the corporation pursuant to Article 39(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is essential to include the location at which the company can be actually involved in its operation as a general partner on the date of establishing the liability for tax payment of national taxes in arrears and, in its form, it is impossible to impose the liability for tax payment as a general partner only on the ground that the company was registered as a general partner in the corporation's registry with the fact that the non-party 1 was registered as a member of the unlimited liability company in violation of the above principle, and that the non-party 2 was registered with the non-party 1's branch office under the premise that it was not recorded in cash account.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.