Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap17940 ( November 30, 2012)

early 2011west 5071

Inasmuch as an employee attorney is not in the position of the second taxpayer, the second taxpayer is not in the position.

The plaintiff was registered as a member on the register of the non-party corporation and was in the position of an employment lawyer, and thus, the second taxpayer is not in the position.

2013Nu132. Designation and disposition, etc. of the person liable for secondary tax payment

AA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap17940 decided November 30, 2012

May 9, 2013

August 29, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

On August 23, 2011, the Defendant revoked each of the dispositions imposed by the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on OOOO(including additional taxes), OOO(including additional taxes), OOO(including additional taxes) for the second period of value-added tax in 2007, OOO(including additional taxes) for the first period of 2008, and OOO(including additional taxes) for the second period of value-added tax in 2008.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable and acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. (However, the term "OOOOO" of No. 2 and No. 4-5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is corrected as "OOOO".

2. The defendant asserts that the disposition in this case is lawful since the defendant was in a position that the plaintiff could actually participate in the operation of the non-party corporation as a member of the non-party corporation as of the date when the tax liability for delinquent national taxes imposed by the disposition in this case was established.

However, in full view of the evidence cited in the judgment of the court of first instance as seen earlier, and the non-party corporation has invested 100% of the entire arguments and operated it independently, and the fact that the plaintiff, who is an employment attorney, is formally registered as a member in the register of the non-party corporation in order to meet the requirements prescribed in the relevant laws and regulations, such as the number of members required to establish and maintain the legal entity, can be sufficiently recognized, and the plaintiff is not in the position of the person liable for secondary tax payment. Accordingly, the defendant'

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of grounds.