logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1987. 1. 20. 선고 86누727 판결
[제2차납세의무자지정처분등취소][공1987.3.1.(795),322]
Main Issues

The meaning of oligopolistic stockholders liable for secondary tax liability

Summary of Judgment

In order to have a shareholder of a corporation bear the secondary tax liability in accordance with Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the shareholder is required to be in a position to substantially control the operation of the corporation as an oligopolistic shareholder.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu105 Decided July 8, 1986, 86Nu74 Decided December 9, 1986, 86Nu330 Decided December 9, 1986

Plaintiff-Appellee

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant, the superior, or the senior

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu167 delivered on September 12, 1986

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In order to bear the secondary tax liability to the shareholders of the corporation in accordance with Article 39 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is required that the shareholders are in a position to substantially control the operation of the corporation as oligopolistic shareholders.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed on January 17, 1983 that the non-party, who is the representative director of the non-party original engineering corporation, was in the form of shareholders' list, which held 3,000 shares of the above company without the plaintiff's consent, and that the plaintiff did not actually control the company's management, such as exercising the rights as a shareholder or participating in management, etc.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged.

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

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)

arrow