Where disposition is different and the grounds for appeal are common, the effects of the administrative appeal ruling.

In principle, a disposition that is the subject of an administrative appeal should be identical to a disposition that is the subject of an administrative appeal. If the subject of an appeal is different, even if the grounds of appeal are common, it cannot be deemed that the other disposition satisfies the requirements of an administrative appeal on the ground that it has undergone a separate administrative appeal ruling and has undergone an administrative appeal ruling

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

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment by Contributors)

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim for revocation against each of the dispositions in the separate sheet Nos. 11 through 15, 22, 24, 27, 29, and 34 shall be dismissed.

2. Each disposition of imposition Nos. 1 through 10, 16, and 17 against the plaintiffs, and each disposition of imposition Nos. 18 through 21, 23, 25, 26, and 28 against the plaintiffs ○○.

3. One-fourth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Each disposition that the Defendant issued against the Plaintiffs is revoked as stated in [Attachment 1-17] Nos. 18 through 34 of the same details as to the Plaintiff Yang ○, which the Defendant had against the Plaintiffs (the date of the disposition stated in the application for amendment of the claim on June 2, 2008 appears to be the clerical error of December 12, 2005).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (former ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., hereinafter the “Non-party Co., Ltd”) was a non-listed corporation established on February 24, 1993 and closed the construction business on January 2005

B. For the period from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2004, the Defendant: (a) was deemed to have actually controlled the company’s management as a shareholder of the non-party company’s total issued shares 200,000; (b) on December 12, 2005, the Plaintiffs and both exchange were designated as the secondary taxpayer of the company; and (c) notified the said company of the tax amount corresponding to KRW 214,626,350 (the value-added tax, etc. for the second period of 2004, 192, 928, 250 + 21698,100,000). Of these, the portion of the tax liability established after August 11, 2003, for which the Plaintiffs claimed that they transferred the shares to the said company, the Defendant made a notice of the tax amount corresponding to each contribution share amounting to KRW 215,626,350 (i).e., 10).

C. In addition, on March 13, 2006, the Defendant: (a) on December 12, 2005, 222,344,140 won, including the value-added tax, corporate tax, etc. omitted at the time of notice of payment on December 12, 2005 (i.e., this tax amount of KRW 210,018,720 + penalty tax of KRW 12,325,420); (b) additionally designated the Plaintiffs and Yang-○ as the secondary tax obligor; and notified the tax amount corresponding to each equity share; (c) the part for which the obligation to pay taxes was established after August 11, 2003, claiming that the Plaintiffs transferred the stocks owned to the said company, is identical to the attached disposition Nos. 11 through 17 (hereinafter the second disposition)

D. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the plaintiffs and both ○○ et al. appealed against the designation of the second taxpayer on December 12, 2005 and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on January 19, 2006. On May 30, 2006, the National Tax Tribunal accepted the appeal on December 22, 2006, respectively, and rejected the appeal by each of the plaintiffs.

E. After the decision of each national tax assessment on January 15, 2007, the Defendant deemed that the shares in both ○○ and others were owned by Plaintiff Yang ○, and accordingly, the Defendant designated Plaintiff Yang ○ as the secondary taxpayer and additionally notified the payment of the tax amount equivalent to 30% of the shares imposed on Yang ○, etc. as above. Among them, the part for which the tax liability was established after August 11, 2003, claiming that the said Plaintiff transferred the shares in the non-party company’s stock ownership, is as indicated in [Attachment 18-34] No. 18 or 34 (hereinafter the third disposition).

[Based on the recognition] Evidence No. 5, Evidence No. 12, Evidence No. 17, Evidence No. 17, Evidence No. 1-3, Evidence No. 3-5, Evidence No. 6, Evidence No. 7-1-3, Evidence No. 8-1-3, Evidence No. 9-2, Evidence No. 11-3, Evidence No. 12, Evidence No. 13-1-3, Evidence No. 12, Evidence No. 13-1-17, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the plaintiffs transferred all shares to the non-party ○○, etc. on August 11, 2003 and transferred the representative director to the non-party ○○, the defendant did not take part in the management of the above company since then, since August 11, 2003, determined that the above company's oligopolistic shareholder has practically exercised its rights to the shares, and that the disposition of this case for which the plaintiffs designated the non-party 2 as the second taxpayer and notified the payment of the tax amount in arrears of the above company established after August 11, 2003 is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment by Contributors)

C. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful

(1) In order to file a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition, the procedure of the preceding trial must be conducted. In principle, a disposition that is the subject of an administrative litigation should be identical to a disposition that is the subject of an administrative appeal. If different grounds for appeal are common, it cannot be deemed that the requirements of the preceding disposition were satisfied, on the ground that separate administrative adjudication was conducted and a decision on an administrative appeal was rendered. In other words, the so-called tax lawsuit pursuant to Articles 5 and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes excludes the application of Article 18(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act. As such, if multiple persons were to bear the same obligation under the same taxation, if one person was given a legitimate opportunity to rectify the relevant taxation, it is reasonable to view that the said disposition was conducted by several installment payments for a single taxable cause, and that one of them was legitimate, even if a taxpayer was not subject to an interim tax disposition prior to the first instance trial and subsequent to the second instance trial’s determination of the tax disposition, it cannot be said that the interim tax disposition was not subject to prior to an administrative litigation.

(2) After the first disposition, the plaintiffs and Yang ○ et al. objection to the second disposition on December 12, 2005, and thereafter filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on May 30, 2006. The National Tax Tribunal rendered the third disposition on December 22, 2006 by the defendant's defect of accepting each decision on the appeal on Yang ○ et al. on December 2, 2006. The facts of the third disposition are as follows: Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 8-1, 3, 4, 5-1, 8-2, Eul evidence 8-1, 1-3, 9, 10-1, 1-2, 1, 13-1, 1-1, 2, and 13-1, 13-1, 13-1, 13-1, 3-2, 3-2, and 3-2, each of the pertinent dispositions of imposition by the National Tax Tribunal are as follows.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs and both exchange et al. were conducted only for the first disposition. The third disposition is merely a second taxpayer for the reason that both exchange et al. were designated and notified to pay taxes did not constitute an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company, and it is merely a second disposition to be imposed again on the plaintiff Yang ○ for the reason that both exchange et al. were not constituted an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company, and thus, the second disposition is not necessary for the second disposition of the first to the second disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the first to the second. The second disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the first to the third disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the first to the second. The second disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the first disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the first to the third disposition of the second disposition of the first disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the first to the third disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition of the second disposition.

However, each disposition of imposition Nos. 22,24, 27, 29, and 34 among the second disposition of 11 through 15 and the third disposition of 22,24, 27, and 29 to 34 is different from each disposition of the first disposition even if the plaintiffs were the secondary taxpayer of the non-party company, and not only is it separate from each disposition of the first disposition, but also the dispute over the disposition is likely to differ depending on the cause of the tax base, the year of occurrence, and the specific items different, and there is no evidence to prove that it had been done. Thus, the part seeking revocation of each disposition of imposition of the above is unlawful

D. Determination on the merits

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) As the representative director of the non-party company, the plaintiff Yang-soo owned shares in the name of 80,000 won of the total shares of the above company, in the name of 200,000 won of the above company, and owned each share in the name of 40,000 won of the total shares of the above company, and controlled and managed the above company. On July 28, 2003, the plaintiff Yang-soo entered into a contract on the transfer of the whole business with the non-party Yang-ok on August 11, 2003, setting the date of the transfer of the business as the whole and the tax and public charges (including national taxes and local taxes) accrued before the transfer of the business, while it takes full responsibility for the whole cost of the transfer of the business, and the transfer of shares in the name of the above plaintiff to ○-○,000 won of the purchase price of 80,000 won on the day of the contract, and the transfer of shares to 160,003.

(B) On July 28, 2003, the Plaintiff Yang-tae transferred 60,000 shares of his own name with Lee Jong-cheon to KRW 21,00,000,000,000 per contract, and entered into a share transfer agreement on August 11, 2003 that received KRW 12,000,000 per contract, and transferred the said shares to Lee Jong-cheon on August 11, 2003.

(C) On July 28, 2003, between the transfer of 40.00 shares in the name of ○○○ and the transfer of 40.00 shares in the name of ○○○○○○ on behalf of Nonparty 1, 200, the Plaintiff Yang○ entered into a share transfer agreement on behalf of ○○○○○ on behalf of ○○○○○○, whereby each share transfer of 18,00 shares in the name of ○○○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○ on behalf of ○○○○○. On August 11, 2003, the Plaintiff transferred each share as above.

(D) On the other hand, in the corporate register of the non-party company, the plaintiff Yang ○○ originally resigned from the office of representative director, director, director, and auditor of the above company, and on the same day, the registration of change was completed in the name of the representative director of the company, director's arising from the transformation, director's arising from the audit, Kim ○○ as the main office of the relevant transformation. Since August 11, 2003, the plaintiff Yang ○○ was paid monthly salary for working in the non-party company, and did not hold the above company's shares. However, since the plaintiff had possessed the career certificate of construction technology, the plaintiff was registered as the above company's director on the corporate register in the form of corporate register.

(E) In addition, the name of the representative on the business registration certificate of the non-party company was changed to that on August 29, 2003, and on August 18, 2003, the register of shareholders of the above company stated that among the total shares of 200,000 shares, the title of the representative was 45,000 shares of the non-party company.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1-4, Gap evidence 6-1-11, Eul evidence 7-1-3, Gap evidence 9-1-3, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, Gap evidence 13-16, Gap evidence 18-1-3, part of the witness's evidence 18-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Determination

On August 1, 2003, prior to the date of establishing each tax liability of imposition of 18-21, 23, 25, 26, and 28 among the first and second dispositions and the third dispositions of imposition of 16-21, 23, 26, and 28 among the second dispositions, the plaintiffs are not deemed to be an oligopolistic shareholder with secondary tax liability under Article 39(1)2 and 39(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes at the time of establishing each of the above tax liability. As asserted by the defendant, even if the non-party company submitted a corporate tax settlement statement for the year 2003, and did not submit a detailed statement on the change in stocks on the list of shareholders, the plaintiffs' stocks were actually transferred, and the transfer was made on the register of shareholders, and the representative, etc. was changed to the corporate register or the business registration certificate.

Therefore, the Defendant’s imposition of No. 16 and No. 17 of the first and second dispositions under the premise that the Plaintiffs are oligopolistic shareholders and the third dispositions are unlawful. Each disposition of No. 18-21, 23, 25, 26, and 28 of the third dispositions.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the couple seeking revocation of each of the dispositions of Nos. 11 through 15 among the dispositions of this case among the second dispositions of this case and the third dispositions of Nos. 22,24,27, 29 and 34 among the dispositions of this case is unlawful and dismissed. Each of the plaintiffs' respective claims of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.