The legitimacy of the assertion that the designation of the secondary taxpayer is improper by lending only the name.

Although it is alleged that only the name was lent and no general partner was engaged in business, but a judicial compromise was established, such circumstance alone alone cannot be deemed null and void as the instant taxation disposition has a significant and apparent defect.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 47,181,160 won with 5% interest per annum from December 12, 2006 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 2, 1995, the Defendant was registered as a general partner of the above president’s registry from February 9, 1005 on the ground that the Defendant acquired the shares of Lee Won-won, a representative member of the ○○○○ Company, from February 2, 1995.

B. The defendant filed a lawsuit on the confirmation of the status of the representative director and the representative director of each of the above companies and the representative director and the representative director of the above company to the effect that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was registered in the company registry as the actual operator of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on May 8, 2008, the representative director and the representative of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ on January 198, 2001.

C. Meanwhile, as the head office of Echeon-si ○○○-si 104-O was delinquent in value-added tax, corporate tax, etc., the head office of Echeon-si ○○-si ○○○○-si 104-O under the Defendant’s head office deemed the Plaintiff as a person falling under Article 39(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (i.e., an “unlimited liability member”), and designated the Plaintiff as a secondary taxpayer for KRW 47,181,160 during the period for which the Plaintiff was registered as a general partner of the above ○○-si ○○○-si ○○○-si ○○, and the Plaintiff paid the above money on December 11, 206.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 11, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

Although the Plaintiff had the same facts as the Plaintiff’s 1-A, the Plaintiff merely lent its name upon the request of ○○○○, the actual operator of the ○○○ Company, and did not actually engage in the business as a general partner of the said ○○ Company. Accordingly, in the case of Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, Sungwon District Court 2008Gahap1251, the above judicial compromise was established, and the Plaintiff does not fall under the “unlimited liability member of the said unlimited partnership company.” Accordingly, the instant tax disposition that the Plaintiff designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer is illegal and obvious, and thus, the Plaintiff claimed as a party liable for tax payment, and sought a refund of the paid amount.

Therefore, as long as there exists an open fact, such as the statement 1-A (A) in this case, there is no substantial loan of the name only by the request of No. 1, the actual operator of ○○ Company, as alleged by the Plaintiff, to the general partner of the above ○○ Company. Accordingly, even if the above judicial compromise was established in the case No. 2008Gahap1251, Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch, Sungwon District Court, Sungwon District Court, 2008Gahap1251, such circumstance alone does not necessarily lead to a substantial and obvious defect that the instant tax disposition is concerned, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion based on this premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.