Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap631 (Law No. 16, 2008)

Review Other 2007-0065 ( December 03, 2007)

Whether a person who exercises the right exceeding 50% of the issued stocks is the person liable for secondary tax payment.

An oligopolistic stockholder who exercises the right to shares exceeding 50% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares under Article 39 (1) 2 (a) of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall not be required to control a corporation, and is sufficient if he has the right to exercise the right.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment of Contributors)

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. On July 23, 2007, the defendant designated the plaintiffs as the secondary tax obligor of ○○ Logistics Co., Ltd. and revoked the disposition imposing corporate tax of 18,881,340 won, value-added tax of 8,950,260 won, value-added tax of 2, 2006 for each business year of 2, 2006, and additional tax of 56,430 won, increased additional tax of 226,570 won, additional tax of 226,570 won, and additional tax of 268,500 won for value-added tax.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first island;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the second instance among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment]

(a) Amendment to the 67,89,22 of the first instance court's 4th 9th 9th 'A' portion of the 167, 89, 22th 'A'(including the number) of the 167, 89, or 4th 'A'; however, the 11th 'Entry' portion next to this court' and the 000th 'A' of this court' and the 000th 'A' of this 'A' portion of testimony and testimony

C. On May 15, 2006, the 4th 13th 14th 14th 206 changed the name to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 2006, 2006, 206, 3th 5th 6th 9th 6th 6th 6th 6th 16th 206, 206, 205th 6th 6th 6th 16th 206, respectively, 205th 6th 6th 206th 26th 16th 206. 26th 26th 206th 206th 206th 206th 3.

(7) At the time of the acquisition of the above shares, the share capital for 20,000 shares, which is the above total number of shares, was paid in KRW 100,000 in the name of ○ Transportation Co., Ltd. on November 10, 200, but all of the above KRW 100,000,000 was immediately withdrawn on November 11, 2003, following the completion of the registration of the establishment of a company.

(i) to delete all parts not more than two paragraphs (6) and to add the following judgments:

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the change in the permit for trucking transport business as seen in the above facts; (b) ○○ Transportation and the executive officers and employees of the non-party company; (c) the relationship between ○○○ and the plaintiffs; and (d) the business closure and resumption of ○○○○ Labor, as seen in the above facts found, after having requested the Plaintiffs and the non-party company to register the Plaintiffs and the non-party company as the shareholders and executive officers of the non

Until November 28, 2005, there is room to view that the truck forwarding business chain runs the business of ○ Transportation and the non-party company.

However, in light of the prosecutorial investigation results, shareholders, meeting minutes of the board of directors, application for registration, etc., the Plaintiffs deemed to have consented to the use of their names, such as allowing the use of their seal imprint and providing their seal imprint certificates, and thus, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have used their names by theft.

Furthermore, as seen above, in light of the fact that the plaintiffs provided the certificate of personal seal impression necessary for applying for registration in the establishment of the non-party company, and even according to the plaintiffs' assertion, the non-party company did not have invested in the non-party company, and according to the above facts, the procedure for paying the share price shall be deemed to have been conducted in the manner of fictitious payment, etc., the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to be only the nominal holder who lent their names to ○○ union. Rather, the plaintiffs shall not be deemed to have been a person who voluntarily obtained the status as a shareholder and belongs to the oligopolistic shareholder who can actually exercise their rights to the above shares, and it is reasonable to see that the plaintiffs merely delegated ○○

The plaintiffs asserted that, after the trade name of the non-party company was changed to ○○ Logistics, the plaintiffs could not be a member of the oligopolistic shareholder group who actually exercised the rights to shares upon the request of this union at least after the above change of trade name, and therefore, according to the statements in subparagraphs 8 through 14 and witness Lee ○-o's testimony, the plaintiffs alleged that the plaintiffs who became shareholders upon the request of this union cannot be a member of the oligopolistic shareholder group who actually exercised the rights to shares. Accordingly, after the trade name was changed to ○○ Logistics, the ec, ○○, ○○, and ○○ was registered within the short period after the trade name was changed to ○○ Logistics, the ec

Although it is acknowledged that ○○○ stated that he did not know the plaintiffs, he/she did not clearly state the existence of the plaintiffs who are the ○○ shareholder who actually operated the company at the time when ○○○ and ○○○ was listed as the representative director without complying with the request of investigation agencies. The above ○○ and ○○○○ was issued with a certificate of personal seal impression upon the request of the above ○○ and ○○○○ Kim○○, and the above ○○ stated that he/she was listed as the representative director of the non-party company. The above ○○ and ○○○ stated that he/she did not know the plaintiffs. Thus, it is still missing that ○○ and ○○○○ did not gather the plaintiffs, unlike the above ○○ shareholder’s appearance under Article 39(1)2(a) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that 10% or more of the shareholders’ rights are not exercised, and thus, it cannot be objectively acknowledged that the plaintiffs did not exercise their rights after exercising 10% or more of shareholder rights.

Therefore, the plaintiffs are the persons who actually exercise the rights to more than 51/100 of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company, i.e., the second taxpayer who is a member of the oligopolistic shareholder group, and the non-party company is obligated to pay an amount equivalent to the ratio of shares owned by the plaintiffs among the tax amount in arrears. Thus, each taxation disposition of this case and each

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.