Appropriateness of the disposition of designation and payment notice of the secondary taxpayer

It is reasonable to view that there is a separate share price equivalent to 85% of the shares in the name of the company and that only the name of the shareholder was lent.

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment of Contributors)

1. The disposition of imposition No. 1-5 of the attached Form No. 1-5 against the Plaintiff on November 23, 2004 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 23, 2004, the Defendant imposed KRW 79,463,240 equivalent to the Plaintiff’s equity shares out of total amount of 83,486,260 won, including value-added tax for the second period of February 2002, on the ground that the Plaintiff owned 85% of the Plaintiff’s shares of ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○”) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○”) and actually exercised its rights and constitutes the secondary taxpayer of the Nonparty Corporation.

B. On May 20, 2005, the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) revoked the secondary tax obligor’s designation of KRW 23,290,120 as to the aggregate tax amount of KRW 6-8 No. 6-8, which was established after the Plaintiff escaped from the position of oligopolistic shareholders (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”), among the dispositions imposing KRW 79,463,240, the amount of KRW 56,173,120 deducted the reduced amount of KRW 23,290,120 in the objection procedure).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry with Gap 4-1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination of legality of disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is only a shareholder of the non-party corporation.

(b) Related statutes;

▉국세기본법

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment of Contributors) (1) Where the property of a corporation (excluding a corporation whose stocks are listed on the Korea Stock Exchange) is insufficient to cover national taxes, additional dues, and disposal expenses in arrears imposed on or to be paid by such corporation, the person falling under any of the following subparagraphs as of the date on which the liability for tax payment of national taxes is established shall be subject to the secondary liability for tax payment of such shortage: Provided, That in the case of an oligopolistic stockholder under subparagraph 2, it shall not exceed the amount calculated by multiplying the amount obtained by dividing the shortage by the total number of stocks issued (excluding non-voting stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or total amount of investment of such corporation, by the number of stocks owned (excluding non-voting stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in

2. An oligopolistic stockholder who falls under any of the following items:

(a) A person who exercises a substantial right over the stocks or shares in excess of 51/100 of the total issued stocks or investments of the juristic person concerned;

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On January 16, 2002, a non-party corporation was established with 20,000 shares of 20,000 shares (an amount of KRW 5,000 per share) and 100 million capital. At the time, the number of shares owned by each shareholder was 13,00 shares by a stock company, the shareholder of which is 75% shares, and 3,000 shares by a non-party corporation, the shareholder of which is 13,00 shares, and 2,00 shares by a non-party corporation, the shareholder of which is 3,00 shares, and 2,00 shares by a ○○○, the shareholder of this ○○, the shareholder of this ○○, and 1,00 shares by a ○○○○, the shareholder of this ○○, but actually paid 100 million shares in full, from the time of incorporation of the non-party corporation to December 22, 2003.

(2) On March 18, 2002, the Plaintiff was employed as the director of the non-party corporation as the director of the division, and was promoted from January 1, 2003 to the vice-director, and served as the film hall management team leader on January 31, 2004, and retired on January 31, 2004. The Plaintiff received monthly salary from the non-party corporation within the working period and paid Class A employment income tax.

(3) On October 5, 2002, the Plaintiff transferred 13,00 shares of ○○○○○○○○○○○○ upon the request of ○○○○○○○○○○○○, 2,00 shares of west○○○○○○○, 17,00 shares of west○○○○○○○, and 1,00 shares of west○○○○○○○○○○○○, respectively, in its own name. Of these, 7,80 shares were returned to ○○○○○○○○○ on April 1, 2003, and 8,200 shares were returned to ○○○○○ on April 2, 200. The Plaintiff did not gain any profit in the process.

(4) In addition, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the non-party corporation from April 10, 2003 to December 31, 2004, but on April 5, 2003, immediately before the registration as the representative director, the Plaintiff transferred the entire business rights of the non-party corporation to the non-party corporation ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Evidence No. 2-1 through 3, Evidence No. 5-1 through 6, Evidence No. 6, Evidence No. 7, Evidence No. 8-1 through 10, Evidence No. 9, Evidence No. 10-2, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 2-1, 2-2, Evidence No. 2-1, 3, Evidence No. 1-3, Evidence No. 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

D. Determination

The statement of changes in stocks, etc. of the non-party corporation at the end of each taxable period, which is the date on which the liability to pay delinquent national taxes in this case was established, states that the plaintiff owned 85% of the shares of the non-party corporation. However, considering the details of the establishment of the non-party corporation, the process of disposal of shares and goodwill, the details of the plaintiff's business, the relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party corporation and the non-party corporation, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the actual ownership of shares equivalent to 85% of the shares registered in the name of the plaintiff was the corporation ○○○○○ or the non-party corporation, and the plaintiff merely lent the name of the shareholder to the non-party corporation ○○○○, etc.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Details of taxation on the plaintiff

No.

Items of Taxation

Amount of tax (85 per cent equity ratio) (won)

1

Value-added tax for the period of two years in 2002

14,178,010

2

202 Corporate tax for the business year

10,786,900

3

Earned income tax on February 2003

142,690

4

Value-added tax for the first quarter of 2003

30,631,170

5

Earned income tax on March 2003

434,350

Total: 56,173,120

6

The interim prepayment of the business year 2003

3,138,320

7

Value-added tax for the period of two years in 2003

11,240,310

8

Value-added tax for the first quarter of 2004

8,911,490

Total: 23,290,120