logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1985. 3. 12. 선고 84누688 판결
[제2차납세의무자지정처분취소][공1985.5.1.(751),561]
Main Issues

Where an oligopolistic stockholder transfers part of its own stocks to a driving number, whether the status of the oligopolistic stockholder is changed or not.

Summary of Judgment

Even if the Plaintiff, an oligopolistic stockholder, transferred part of the stocks owned to himself, the above driver is in an employment relationship with the Plaintiff, and it is clear that the Plaintiff is a person in a special relationship with the Plaintiff under Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 20 subparagraph 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Plaintiff is recognized as an oligopolistic stockholder of the stocks issued by the company

[Reference Provisions]

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 20 of Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Plaintiff-Appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee

The director of the North Incheon National Tax Office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu1066 delivered on October 30, 1984

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that, on June 30, 1982, the plaintiff among the 200,000 shares issued by the above company as of June 30, 1982, 1982, the date of establishing liability for the payment of value-added tax, which was 6,00 shares of the above company, the non-party 1 owns 6,000 shares, 6,00 shares of the above company's 6,00 shares and 51 percent or more of the total amount of shares issued by the above company as oligopolistic shareholders. The above non-party 1's assertion that it is 6,00 shares owned by the above company's 6,00 shares to the non-party 3 on March 18, 1982, since all shares owned by the plaintiff and non-party 2 as of June 30, 1982, the above company's establishment of liability for the payment of value-added tax, and it did not constitute an oligopolistic shareholder's theory of 98, without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)

arrow