The meaning of oligopolistic stockholders with secondary tax liability of a corporation

Pursuant to Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a person who has secondary tax liability of a corporation is a shareholder or one limited partner, a relative or a person with special relation as prescribed by the Presidential Decree other than them (Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes) and whose total amount of stocks or investment of the corporation is not less than 51/10 of the total amount of issued and outstanding stocks or total amount of investment of the corporation and is in a position to substantially control the operation

Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu607 Decided January 24, 1984, 85Nu63 Decided June 11, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu813 Decided January 21, 1986

Plaintiff

Head of Busan Customs Office

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu217 delivered on February 28, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a person who has secondary tax liability for a corporation is a shareholder or partner with limited liability, a relative or related person prescribed by Presidential Decree other than them (Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and whose total amount of stocks or investment of the corporation is not less than 51/10 of the total amount of issued and outstanding stocks or total amount of investment of the corporation and who is in a position to substantially control the operation of the corporation is a consistent view of the party members.

Based on macro evidence, the court below held that, although the non-party 1 was the so-called one company established solely by the non-party 1, around 1973, the non-party 1 was the so-called one company established solely by the non-party 1, the non-party 1 was registered as a shareholder in the form of the above company's shares registry, the non-party 1 had his relative or his employees, in the form of a promoters or shareholders only for convenience in order to establish the form of the company, and then he had his employees removed from the company, etc., he managed the register of shareholders at will, and the non-party 2, who had been engaged in the business until the end of 1976, left the register of shareholders. The non-party 1, who had been unable to live as a high school teacher at the time, had the above non-party 2 entered the above non-party 2's shares in the list of shareholders of the above company, etc., on the premise that the above non-party 1 did not know that he had been subject to the above taxation.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law in the misconception of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, due to the misconception of facts or the incomplete deliberation.

There is no reason for this issue.

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

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)