Gwangju District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-10851 ( November 20, 2014)

Even if only a formal shareholder is a mere formal shareholder, the defect cannot be objectively apparent.

Even if there is a defect that is merely a formal shareholder of the disposition of this case misleads the plaintiff as an oligopolistic shareholder, the disposition of this case cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course because the defect cannot be objectively apparent.

Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014Nu6875 Nullification of the designation of the person liable for secondary tax payment

AA

000 director of the tax office

Gwangju District Court Decision 2014Guhap10851 decided November 20, 2014

June 18, 2015

July 16, 201

(as shown in the judgment of the first instance)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant designated the Plaintiff on August 30, 2012 as the secondary taxpayer and the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer.

The principal tax of value-added tax for the second term of 2010, 17,933,830 won, increased additional tax, etc. for 8,500,410

The imposition of source tax, the principal tax of value-added tax for a period of one year 201, 20,789,470 won, increased additional tax, etc. 9,132,970

this chapter confirms that the disposition is null and void.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (However, the part of "the judgment on the defendant's defense on the main safety" is excluded), so it is citing it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.