Whether the designation of the secondary taxpayer is legitimate or not;

It is insufficient to recognize that pro-friendly is not in a position to exercise shareholders' rights as a formal shareholder because he/she opened a corporate passbook in the name of the plaintiff bank, even though he/she fully aware that he/she will use the plaintiff's seal imprint and resident registration certificate for the establishment of a company, and he/she was registered as a representative director and received benefits.

Article 39 (Secondary Tax Liability of Investors)

2018Guhap62980 Corporate Tax, etc. and revocation of the designation of the secondary taxpayer;

AA

FF Head of FF Tax Office

on October 28, 2019

on October 28, 2019

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax of KRW 29,034,840 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), corporate tax of KRW 35,419,50 for the business year of 2013, corporate tax of KRW 52,971,490 for the business year of 2014, corporate tax of KRW 49,385,290 for the business year of 2015, and corporate tax of KRW 7,251,00 for the first year of 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A A A.S. Co., Ltd (former trade name abbbb corporation; hereinafter referred to as a “non-party corporation”) was established on June 24, 2004 for the purpose of the livestock product distribution business, etc. on or around the same day, and collected KRW 36,293,560 (including additional taxes; hereinafter the same shall apply), corporate tax of KRW 44,274,380 for the business year 2013, corporate tax of KRW 66,214,380 for the business year 2014, corporate tax of KRW 61,731,620 for the business year 2015, and value-added tax of KRW 9,064,00 for the first year 2016 for the business year 2014.

B. On July 28, 2017, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder holding 16,000 shares, which are 80% of the total number of outstanding shares of the non-party company, and deemed that the corporate tax is attributed to the non-party company pursuant to subparagraph 2 of Article 39 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; prior to the amendment by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; the corporate tax belonging to the business year of 2015 and the value-added tax belonging to the first half of 2016 shall be reverted to the Plaintiff; the amount reverted to the non-party company’s secondary taxpayer of corporate tax; the amount reverted to the Plaintiff for each business year of 2012, 2014; the amount reverted to the Plaintiff for 201, 304, 2094, 2051, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal on November 7, 2017 on September 8, 2017, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on February 2, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (which has a serial number)

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, upon the request of CCC, had a resident registration certificate and a seal imprinted. CCC established a non-party company in the name of the Plaintiff without prior notification or consent, and registered the Plaintiff as a shareholder of the non-party company. The Plaintiff did not participate in the management of the non-party company or received dividends or benefits. Therefore, the Plaintiff was merely a shareholder of the non-party company in the form of the non-party company, and was not in the status of exercising shareholder rights, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful on the

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 39 subparag. 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “A shareholder or one limited partner and a person prescribed by Presidential Decree among his/her related parties, whose total amount of stocks held or investments exceeds 50/100 of the total number of outstanding stocks or investments of the relevant corporation and who actually exercises rights thereto,” is an oligopolistic shareholder with secondary tax liability. The foregoing oligopolistic shareholder does not necessarily have to exercise shareholders’ rights in reality, but is sufficient if he/she is in a position to exercise shareholders’ rights with respect to the stocks held as of the date of establishment of tax liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du5354, Jul. 8, 2003). The tax authority can prove the ownership of stocks corresponding to the oligopolistic shareholder based on the data, such as the shareholder registry, detailed statement of stock transfer or corporate register register, etc. In cases where a shareholder appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, such stockholder can only be deemed to fall under the shareholder under the name of the relevant corporation, but it shall not be proven by the nominal owner (see, etc.).

2) Determination on issues

The fact that the Plaintiff was registered as a shareholder holding 16,00 shares, which are 80% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares, during each taxable period of the instant disposition, is not a dispute between the parties. Therefore, if the Plaintiff intends not to support the secondary tax liability, it is necessary to prove that the Plaintiff is merely a shareholder in its form. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s testimony and the witness’s testimony are difficult to believe as they are, and are not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not in a position to exercise the shareholder’s right as a formal shareholder, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

A) Since the Plaintiff was well aware of the pro-friendly CCC’s business operation, the Plaintiff appears to have sufficiently recognized that his resident registration certificate and his seal impression will be used for the establishment and operation of the non-party company. Nevertheless, there is no entirely any trace of the Plaintiff’s efforts to receive the above resident registration certificate and his seal impression from CCC prior to the instant disposition.

B) During each taxable period of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff was registered as not only the shareholders of the non-party company but also the representative director.

C) The list of earned income statement states that the Plaintiff received benefits exceeding KRW 300 million from the non-party company from 2005 to 2016. In addition, the Plaintiff’s income reported to the tax authority is the total amount of KRW 947,630,00,000, and the total amount of other income received from the F Capital Capital Co., Ltd. in 2004 and 2006.

D) On June 28, 2004, H Bank account in the name of “Plaintiff (Nonindicted Company)” was opened on June 28, 2004. Since the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality was in force, it is reasonable to deem that the said account was opened directly by the Plaintiff or at least by the Plaintiff’s will.

E) Around June 28, 2004, the time of the incorporation of the non-party company, 50,000,000 shares paid to the H bank account under the above H bank account under the name of the non-party company (the non-party company) (the evidence No. 3-1), and 50,000,000 shares paid to the non-party company’s H bank account under the non-party company’s name on October 27, 2004 at the time of capital increase. The statement of the evidence No. 12 on June 24, 2004 (the evidence No. 3-2), alone, is difficult to readily conclude that the amount of 10,00,000 won deposited in cash from the H bank account under the name of the JJ bank account under the non-party company’s name and the amount of 50,000,000 won paid to the above H bank account was used as 13,1381,200,300 shares paid in cash.

F) The Plaintiff, among the Plaintiff and CCC, was registered as a shareholder holding 10% of the total number of the audit and outstanding shares of the non-party company. However, the Tax Tribunal asserts that the Plaintiff is merely a shareholder of the non-party company in the form of the non-party company on October 16, 2018 on the grounds that: (a) the secondary taxpayer designation for GG on October 16, 2018 and the cancellation of the secondary tax payment notification disposition; (b) the CCC received false tax invoices while substantially operating the non-party company; and (c) the indictment was instituted for the crime, such as the receipt of false tax invoices; (c) the CCC’s written confirmation document prepared by the ZZ; (d) the CCC’s statement at the time of the investigation of tax offenses and the testimony by the CCC at

① In light of the following: (a) share ratio and position of the Plaintiff and GGG; (b) whether the Plaintiff made efforts to suspend the use of the name of the CCC; and (c) whether to receive benefits, etc., the Plaintiff and the GGG cannot be deemed to be the same; (b) even if the CCC actually runs the non-party company, such circumstance does not appear to be compatible with the Plaintiff’s status as a shareholder; and (c) there is no objective data to support the statements of the aforementioned relevant persons; (b) in light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s internal tax payment alone cannot be deemed

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder who owns 80% of the total number of outstanding shares of the non-party company as of the date when the liability for tax payment of each national tax, such as corporate tax in arrears, and exercises a substantial right thereto, and thus, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay secondary tax in accordance with Article 39 subparagraph 2

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.