Since shares are transferred, the person liable for secondary tax payment is unreasonable.

The designation of the person liable for secondary tax payment is unreasonable, since the Plaintiff transferred the instant corporation and shares, but did not change it in the detailed statement of stock transfer.

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

revocation of revocation of imposition of corporate tax, etc. by Suwon District Court 2017Guhap60193

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

August 9, 2018

September 20, 2018

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 00,00,000, corporate tax for the year 2012, corporate tax for the Plaintiff on November 14, 2016, KRW 00,000, corporate tax for the year 2012, and KRW 00,000,000, value-added tax for the year 1, 2011, value-added tax for the year 2, 2011, KRW 00,000,000, value-added tax for the year 1, 2012, KRW 0,000,000, value-added tax for the year 2012, and KRW 1,00,000,00 for the year 20,000 for the year 202, and KRW 00,000,00 for value-added tax for the year 202.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 16, 2010, the Plaintiff established BB BB (hereinafter “instant corporation”) for the purpose of developing electronic equipment and parts and wholesale and retail business. At the time, the total number of outstanding shares of the instant corporation was 2,000 shares (e.g., 5,000 won) and was owned by the Plaintiff, who was appointed as an intra-company director, as an intra-company director.

B. On September 6, 2011, registration was completed to the effect that the Plaintiff resigned from an internal director of the instant corporation, while registration was completed on the same day that the Plaintiff resigned from the audit of the instant corporation on January 5, 2012.

C. On November 14, 2016, the instant corporation failed to pay corporate tax for the year 2012 and taxes for the year 201 and 1 and 2012. On the grounds that the Plaintiff possessed 100% of the shares of the instant corporation at the time of the Plaintiff, the Defendant designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer and notified the Plaintiff of the payment of corporate tax and value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition 1”) as follows (hereinafter “instant disposition 1”).

D. On December 28, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition.

E. On July 28, 2017, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the Defendant confirmed that some of the penalty taxes (e.g., the sound portion of the table below) were imposed, and corrected ex officio the instant disposition by reduction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) On or around September 5, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred the instant legal entity to KimCC. After such transfer, there was no fact of exercising the right of management on the instant legal entity, and there was no real shareholder who did not exercise the right of management on the grounds that the Plaintiff was an oligopolistic shareholder of the instant legal entity, and thus, the instant disposition of taxation was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder of the instant legal entity.

2) Of the instant disposition, the part of the value-added tax for the first and second half years in 2011 was unlawful since the exclusion period for imposition was the same as that for five years.

(b) Related statutes;

Terms and Conditions of Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 39 (Secondary Liability to Pay Taxes by Investor)

Where the property of a corporation is insufficient to appropriate the national tax, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears imposed on or to be paid by the corporation, any of the following persons as of the date on which the national tax liability is established shall assume secondary tax liability for the shortage: Provided, That in cases of an oligopolistic stockholder under subparagraph 2, the limit shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the shortage by the total number of outstanding stocks (excluding non-voting stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) of the corporation or the total amount of investment, the number of stocks (excluding non-voting stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or

2. A stockholder or one limited partner and a person prescribed by Presidential Decree from among his/her related parties, whose total amount of stocks held or investments exceeds 50/100 of the total number of stocks issued or investments made by the relevant corporation and who actually exercise the rights thereto (hereinafter referred to as "point stockholder").

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Whether it constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be determined by whether it is a member of a group of stocks owned by the majority. Specifically, even if there is no fact involved in the management of the company, it cannot be determined that it is not an oligopolistic shareholder. The fact of ownership of stocks is proven by the tax authority based on the data such as the register of stockholders, the statement of stock transfer status, the register of corporate register, etc., and the fact of ownership of stocks should be proved by the tax authority. However, even if it appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, if there are circumstances, such as that the actual shareholder was stolen or registered in a name other than the name of the de facto owner, it cannot be deemed as a shareholder only in the name thereof, but the nominal shareholder who asserts that he is not a shareholder (see Supreme Court

(ii) the facts of recognition

The following facts are recognized in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, the witness lowest, the testimony of Lee So-young, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the plaintiff's personal examination.

A) The Plaintiff decided to transfer the instant legal entity to KimCC due to the difficulties in the operation of the instant legal entity. around September 201, the Plaintiff sent documents necessary for transferring the legal entity to the office of KimK Certified Judicial Scriveners. The Plaintiff paid KRW 227,000 on September 23, 201 to the instant legal entity’s account as remuneration for the said transfer business, and KRW 27,000 on September 27, 201, respectively.

B) Around December 2010, KimCC proposed that Doz take over a legal entity as one of the corporations, and that Doz was the same as Doz's mobile phone business. This proposed that Dozz's seal impression of Maximum Ez. The register of the instant legal entity provides that Doz has taken office as a director of the instant legal entity on September 5, 201, but Doz has resigned on September 21, 201, and that Ez. was appointed as a director of the instant legal entity on September 21, 201, and that Doz has resigned on December 27, 2011). This also stated that Doz was not known to the Plaintiff, while KimCC was taking over the instant legal entity, Doz and Doz did not find the Plaintiff only once but only Doz had worked in the instant legal entity.

C) The Plaintiff did not use the corporate card of the instant corporation after September 1, 2011, and did not receive benefits from the instant corporation after September 1, 2011.

라) 원고는 이 사건 법인을 양도한 이후 이 사건 법인으로부터 배당을 받은 사실이 없고, 주주총회나 이사회에 참석한 사실 역시 없다. 또한 원고는 위 양도 이후 이 사건 법인의 계좌에 급여가 지급된 것으로 기재되어 있는 최QQ, 강QQ, 이QQ, 예QQ, 강QQ 등을 알지 못한다.

3) Determination

At the time when the Plaintiff’s liability to pay corporate tax, etc. was established, the fact that the Plaintiff is registered as the nominal holder holding 100% of the shares in the shareholder registry of the instant corporation is as seen earlier. However, in light of the relevant statutes and legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is deemed to have not changed the shareholder name in the shareholder registry or the statement of stock transfer after transferring the instant corporation and its shares to KimCC, and no further is in the actual exercise of rights to the shares of the instant corporation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to fall under an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39 subparag. 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. On the premise that the Plaintiff falls under an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39 subparag. 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the disposition of this case that the Plaintiff

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.

1) As seen below, the defendant made ex officio correction that reduces part of the above corporate tax and value-added tax during the proceeding of the lawsuit in this case, but the subject of the judgment in this case is still the above disposition of imposition.

2) DoD testified that KimCC had registered himself and best E as an internal director of the instant legal entity, because it has a personal seal impression of himself and best E, as seen above.