Seoul High Court 2011Nu36144 (Law No. 19, 2012)

The exclusion period for taxation against the secondary taxpayer is calculated from the date when the secondary tax liability comes into existence.

Since the disposition of this case, which the defendant designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer by deeming the plaintiff as the oligopolistic shareholder of a corporation, was made five years after the period of exclusion calculated from the date when the second tax liability was established, it is unlawful. Thus, the initial date of exclusion from imposition cannot be recognized as the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff was the date when the plaintiff was known as the oligopolistic shareholder of the corporation or the

2012du23020 Designation of a person liable for secondary tax payment and revocation of such designation.

GoAAA

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu36144 Decided September 19, 2012

February 28, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 39(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same) provides that the secondary tax liability imposed on an oligopolistic stockholder, etc. of a corporation pursuant to Article 39(1) shall proceed separately from the primary tax liability, and it is reasonable to view that the secondary tax liability is five years from the date on which the secondary tax liability is established, unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du11750, Oct. 23, 2008). Based on the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning. The court below rejected the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff, the oligopolistic stockholder of BB BB corporation (hereinafter referred to as "BB transportation"), designated the second taxpayer of BB transportation company as the oligopolistic stockholder, and it was unlawful after five years from the date on which the second tax liability was established. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's allegation that the second or second tax collection period cannot be seen as an unlawful act by the plaintiff.