Even if there is a defect that is mistaken for the oligopolistic shareholder, such defect cannot be deemed objective and clear, and thus cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course.

There is an objective reason to regard the Plaintiff as an oligopolistic shareholder of the instant company, and even if there is a defect which is merely a formal shareholder in the disposition of the instant case as an oligopolistic shareholder of the instant company, such defect cannot be objectively apparent and cannot be viewed as null and void.

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

Suwon District Court 2014Guhap50614 ( October 25, 2015)

O○ ○

○ Head of tax office

oly 2015.14

. 25, 2015

- 2-1. All of the Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

It is confirmed that each taxation disposition stated in attached Form 1, which the defendant of the Gu office imposed on the plaintiff, is all invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 주식회사 ★★★레이, 주식회사 ★★★레오, 주식회사 ★★★리머(이하 '이 사건 회사들'이라고 한다)는 각 2010. 8. 2. 여성 스커트 소매업 등을 목적으로 설립된 회사이고, 원고는 이 사건 회사들의 법인등기부에 이 사건 회사들의 설립 당시부터 현재까지 대표이사로 등기되어 있다.

B. The Defendants, as a result of the investigation into the instant company, knew that the instant company engaged in illegal gambling business through a financial account in the name of the corporation and did not file a return of value-added tax, corporate tax, etc., and as a result of the investigation, the Defendants imposed upon the instant company each of the value-added tax, corporate tax, etc. for the year 2010 and year 2011. The Defendants did not pay the corporate tax, etc. imposed upon the instant company. As the instant company did not pay the corporate tax, etc. imposed upon each of the instant companies, the Defendants, who owned 70% of the shares of the instant company (14,000 shares, 20,000 shares, 14,00 shares, 70%), designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer for the delinquent tax amount, and imposed the Plaintiff the corporate tax, value-added tax, global income tax, 3-3 (3) of tax assessment in accordance with the ratio of shares held by the Plaintiff (70%) (the details of each tax disposition after this disposition were included; hereinafter referred to “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, 11, Eul evidence 1 to 3 and 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff requested a loan of KRW 20 million to a person who became aware of the Internet car page, and only 10 copies of a certificate of personal seal impression and a copy of resident registration do not know all of the company of this case. In addition, the defendant was incorporated for the Internet illegal gambling business not for the purpose on the corporate register by investigating the company of this case, and even though he knew that the company of this case was a third party, not for the purpose on the corporate register, the actual business operator of the company of this case was merely the owner of the company of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case is against the principle of substantial taxation, and the plaintiff did not receive a notice of payment and a notice of tax payment. Accordingly, the disposition of this case is significant and apparent and invalid.

B. Determination

1) As to the service of notice of payment and notice of payment

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including additional numbers), the defendants sent each notice of payment and notice of payment to the second taxpayer with respect to corporate tax and value-added tax as the second taxpayer, and notice of payment to global income tax twice by registered mail at the plaintiff's resident registration address, but sent by public notice. Therefore, the defendants sent each of the above notice of payment and notice of payment to the plaintiff of the defendants to the plaintiff.

- 4- No violation of law, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) As to whether the substance over form principle violates the substance over form principle, the confirmation of a taxpayer should be based on the legal substance, not external appearance, and if the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is a separate person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be the taxpayer and the tax-related Acts shall apply. However, as it is difficult for the tax authority to understand the substance from the outside as an act promoting tax evasion under an agreement with the actual business operator, and it is difficult for the actual business operator to understand it, barring any special circumstance, if the tax authority imposes tax on the person to whom the name of the business belongs as the actual business operator. The assertion and burden of proving that the substance over form can be imposed on a separate actual business operator who is not the actual business operator on the ground that it is different from the actual business relationship is a person who disputes the taxation of the nominal owner (see, e

In addition, in a case where there are objective reasons to believe that certain legal relations or facts which are not subject to taxation are subject to taxation, and it can only be clarified whether they are subject to taxation by accurately investigating the relevant facts, if it is necessary to clarify whether they are subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed that it would be apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegal taxation disposition that misleads the fact subject to taxation is null and void per annum (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff registered as the representative director of the instant company from the time of the establishment of the instant company until now, and entered the Plaintiff’s total issued shares as 14,000 shares out of 20,000 shares in the Plaintiff’s list of shareholders of the instant company (70% shares). Meanwhile, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants issued the instant disposition even though the Defendants knew that the Plaintiff was not the actual business entity of the instant company, but was aware of the fact that the name was stolen. Therefore, the circumstance that the Defendants were deemed to be the oligopolistic shareholder of the instant company, and that the Plaintiff constitutes a formal shareholder who stolen the name different from the list of shareholders, can only be found to have been accurately examined the facts. Thus, even if there is any error that the Plaintiff, who was merely the formal shareholder of the instant disposition, was erroneous as the oligopolistic shareholder of the instant company, it cannot be deemed to have been objectively null and void.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims of the plaintiff in this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.