Since the Plaintiff constitutes an oligopolistic stockholder as prescribed by the provision of this case, the disposition of this case premised on this cannot be deemed unlawful.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was registered in the register of shareholders under the name of the borrower with respect to the instant shares, and even if the Defendant prepared the secondary tax liability investigation report on the basis of only the detailed statement of changes in stocks, etc. without investigating whether the instant shares are beneficial shareholders, it cannot

Article 39 (Secondary Liability to Pay Taxes by Investor)

2015Guhap12175 Revocation of revocation of designation as a person liable for secondary tax payment.

CHAPTER A

The Head of Gangnam Tax Office

on December 22, 2016

on 03 October 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

2O.O.O.O.O. The defendant designated the plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of △△△△△△△, and imposed on the plaintiff, 00,000 won for earned income of 2OO year and additional tax, 00,000 won for earned income of 200O year and additional tax, 00,000 won for corporate tax of 2OO year, 00,000 for corporate tax of 20O year, and 00,000 for additional tax and additional tax, 00, 000, 000, 2000, 200, 2000, 200, 200, 00, 200, 000, 00, 00, 00, 000, 00, 000, additional tax and additional tax, and 00,000, 000, 200,000, 2000, 000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. △△△△△△△ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”) was established on 19O.O.O., and was engaged in design, waterproof, and landscaping and was closed ex officio on 20O.O. O.

B. The Plaintiff, the representative director of the instant company, was the spouse of theOO, owned 0,00 shares of the instant company (hereinafter “instant shares”) under the detailed statement on the change of shares in 200O.

C. The company of this case is equivalent to the amount in the column of "amount in arrears" as stated below the table at the end of 200O.

(including additional tax) impose tax of 00,000,000 won in total of each earned income tax, corporate tax, and value added tax;

The defendant is in arrears with the receipt of 20O.O.O.O.O., the plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder or oligopolistic shareholder of the company of this case, and the spouse of the OO who actually controls the management of the company of this case as the oligopolistic shareholder of this case, and the wage and salary income tax of 2009 and 2011, each wage and salary tax of 2010 and 201, corporate tax of O.O., and value added tax of 200O.O., respectively, Article 39(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes or Article 39(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Oct. 24, 201) (amended by Act No. 11845, Oct. 1, 200; hereinafter collectively referred to as "the above provision of this case"), and thus the plaintiff's shares and salary income tax of 20O.

Items of Taxation

Reversion

Amount in arrears

The designated payment period

Amount (0.0%)

Earned income tax

20OOO 00

00,000

20O,O.O.O.

00,000

Earned income tax

20OOO 00

00,000

20O,O.O.O.

00,000

Corporate Tax

20O

0,000,000

20O,O.O.O.

00,000

Corporate Tax

20O

0,000,000

20O,O.O.O.

00,000

Value-added Tax

20O 1

00,000,000

20O,O.O.O.

00,000,000

Value-added Tax

20O2 2

00,000,000

20O,O.O.O.

00,000,000

Value-added Tax

20O 2

00,000,000

20O,O.O.O.

00,000,000

Value-added Tax

20O 1

00,000,000

20O,O.O.O.

00,000,000

Value-added Tax

20O 2

00,000,000

20O,O.O.O.

00,000,000

Value-added Tax

20O 1

00,000,000

20O,O.O.O.

00,000,000

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 16, 17 evidence, Eul's 1 to 3

of each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As to the procedural defect argument

Inasmuch as there is no basis to deem that the tax authorities specifically prescribe the procedures and scope of the investigation when designating the secondary taxpayer, the instant disposition cannot be deemed a disposition with procedural defects, even if the Defendant did not investigate whether it constitutes a beneficial shareholder and prepared the secondary tax investigation report on the Plaintiff based only on the detailed statement of changes in stocks, etc.

B. As to whether the instant shares were nominal trust

1) The fact of ownership of shares is to be proved by the tax authority through the data, such as the list of shareholders, the statement of stock transfer or the certified transcript of corporate register, etc. However, even in cases where a single shareholder appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, where there are circumstances, such as where the name of the shareholder was stolen or registered in the name other than the real owner, the actual owner is not deemed a shareholder, but the nominal owner who asserts that he/she is not a shareholder should prove that he/she is not a shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du1615, Jul. 9, 2004; 2008Du983, Sept. 11,

2) In light of the following facts and circumstances revealed by adding the aforementioned facts and evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 15, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 11, and the overall purport of pleadings, evidence submitted alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff was registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders under a title trust of the OO, a real owner of the instant shares, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① 원고의 이 사건 회사의 주식 취득 경위 및 내역은 아래 표 기재와 같다. 각 주금이 OOO 개인 또는 주식회사 ●●●●●●●(이하 '●●●●●'라 한다)의 계좌로부터 납입되었는데, 원고는 ●●●●●의 감사 및 과점주주로도 등재되어 있었으므로, 위와 같은 주금 납입이 원고와는 관련이 없는 것이라고 단정하기 어렵다.

Classification

Initial Acquisition

2. Second acquisition

3rd Acquisition

4 The 4th acquisition

Date of acquisition

19O.O.O.

19O.O.O.

19O.O.O.

20O.O.O.O.

Grounds for Acquisition

Promoters

Capital increase

Capital increase

Sales

Number of Stocks

0,000

0,000

0,000

0,000

Face Value

0,000 won

0,000 won

0,000 won

0,000 won

Acquisition Value

00,000,000 won

0,000,000 won

00,000,000 won

00,000,000 won

② The Plaintiff was registered as an auditor of the instant company. In addition, there was no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff exercised its rights or rights as a shareholder, such as attending the shareholders’ general meeting of the instant company or receiving dividends, etc., but there was no evidence to deem that there was a ground to restrict the exercise of its rights.

③ 원고는 이 사건 회사 및 ●●●●● 외에도 OOO이 운영하는 ▲▲▲▲ 주식회사의 감사 및 주주로도 등재되어 있었고, ▲▲▲▲ 주식회사로부터는 20OO년부터 20OO년까지 합계 000,000,000원 상당의 급여를 지급받고 근로소득세 신고를 하기도 하였다.

④ Whether ○00 shares of the instant company are held 0,00 shares, ○.O.O. Plaintiff, and reported capital gains tax and securities transaction tax. ○○ Contract prepared a certificate to the effect that he did not have actually acquired the said shares and only lent only in the name of the promoters upon the request of the OO. However, if the OO was returned to the shares held in title by ○ Contract, there is no evidence to deem that there was a special reason for the instant company to re-title the shares held in title under the name of the Plaintiff, instead of returning it to the name of the Plaintiff. In addition, ○ Contract received from the instant company a total of KRW 00,000,000 from 19O to 20O.

⑤ There was 200O.O.O.O. document stating that the title trust of the instant shares is terminated between theOO and the Plaintiff. However, at the time of filing the corporate tax return for the 200OO’s business year around October 200, the title of the instant shares was not returned under the statement on the status of changes in stocks, etc., and only after the lapse of one year from the date of filing the report, 200O.O.O. document after the date of filing the report on the corporate tax for the 20O’s business year, the statement on the status of changes in stocks, etc. was submitted.

6. Even if the OO borrowed the name of O% of the remaining shares except the shares held by OO and the Plaintiff at the time of the establishment of the instant company from other persons, even though a considerable number of persons other than the Plaintiff have been returned (purchase form) before the 200O business year, the Plaintiff did not return the name at that time with respect to the Plaintiff.

D. Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder as stipulated in the instant provision, and thus, based on this premise.

The instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.