1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation as to this part of the disposition, the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the relevant statutes are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The exercise of rights to shares in excess of 50/100 under Article 39 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes does not necessarily require that the actual exercise of shareholders’ rights should have a result of exercising shareholders’ rights, and at least where the actual exercise of shareholders’ rights to the shares held as of the date of establishment of tax liability is sufficient (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du9287, Dec. 26, 2012). If a genuine shareholder is a true shareholder, whether a director or representative director of the relevant corporation is an oligopolistic shareholder or not does not have any influence in determining whether the relevant

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Nu7997 delivered on January 20, 195). On the other hand, the fact of ownership of shares is to be proved by the data such as the register of shareholders, the statement of stock transfer or the register of corporate register, etc. of the tax authorities. However, even if it appears to be a shareholder in light of the above data, in cases where there are circumstances such as where the tax authorities were stolen the name of the shareholder or registered in the name other than the name of the de facto owner, the actual owner cannot be deemed to be a shareholder, but the nominal owner who asserts that he is not a

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615 Decided July 9, 2004). B.

According to the following circumstances, each of the evidence and evidence set forth above, and evidence Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 1 and 2, the Plaintiff is deemed to have been in the position to exercise shareholder rights as of the date of establishment of the Value-Added Tax Liability, and even if the Plaintiff did not participate in the management of the instant company, it is presumed to have been beneficial shareholders.