The designation of the secondary taxpayer on the premise that he is an oligopolistic shareholder is legitimate.

The designation of the secondary taxpayer under the premise that he is an oligopolistic shareholder is legitimate, but the seizure of the property owned by the Plaintiff is unlawful.

Article 40 of the Framework Act on National Taxes secondary tax liability of corporations

2014Guhap51791 global income, revocation of disposition, etc.

MMM

1. The head of Si/Gun/Gu tax office;

November 13, 2014

February 5, 2015

1. As to the plaintiff:

A. The director of the tax office of the Si/Gun/Gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the director of the tax office of Si/Gun”)’s tax office’s pressure on each of the claims indicated in the separate sheet of bonds

Category 3

B. The pressure of Defendant △△ Head of the tax office on each of the claims listed in the separate sheet No. 2, which was June 11, 2013

Each disposition shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the head of Si/Gun/Gu office are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the head of the tax office of △△ in Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be borne by the Plaintiff’s remainder by the head of the tax office of △ in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and by the head of

Cheong-gu Office

On April 3, 2013, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu tax office having jurisdiction over Paragraph 1 and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall designate the plaintiff as the second taxpayer of AA on April 3, 2013, and then revoke each disposition of imposition in attached Form 1 against the plaintiff, and the attachment disposition in attached Form 3 against the plaintiff on April 23, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a foreign corporation established in Hong Kong on 2006, is a shareholder with 100% of the Plaintiff’s share, and AMH’s share 100% of the Plaintiff’s share is held by AA. AA under title trust to FF Inc. (hereinafter “FF”) of the Republic of Korea’s nationality.

B. On April 13, 201, the head of the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province Tax Office imposed and notified the global income tax of 000 won (including additional taxes), global income tax of 2006, global income tax of 0007 (including additional taxes), global income tax of 2009, global income tax of 2009, global income tax of 000 (including additional taxes), global income tax of 2010, global income tax of 2006, local income tax of 007, local income tax of 2008, and local income tax of 000, local income tax of 2009, and local income tax of 000, local income tax of 2009, and local income tax of 2000, global income tax of 2000, global income tax of 2000, global income tax of 2006, respectively, and the head of the Seoul Special Self-Governing Tax Office cancelled the imposition disposition of additional tax of 200, global income tax of 2000.

C. AA filed a lawsuit on the revocation of imposition of global income tax, etc. on August 14, 2013. The Seoul High Court Decision 2000 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 200 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 200 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 200 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 200 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 200 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 200 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 200 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 200 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 200 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 200 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 200 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 200 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 200 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 200 won among the imposition disposition of global income tax, 2000.

D. As the head of the tax office of the Si/Gun/Gu is insufficient to collect national taxes in arrears with the property of A, he/she designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer pursuant to Article 40 of the National Tax Collection Act on the premise that A is a substantial shareholder with 100% of the Plaintiff’s equity interest, and imposed a disposition, such as global income tax, on April 3, 2013, stating the Plaintiff’s deadline for payment on April 25, 2013 as the attached Table 1’s Schedule of Imposition of Taxation, which was issued on April 25, 2013. On April 12, 2013, the Plaintiff changed the deadline for payment to April 20, 2013 pursuant to Article 14(1)7 of the National Tax Collection Act on the ground that the Plaintiff is likely to evade national taxes (hereinafter “instant disposition against the Plaintiff”).

E. On April 22, 2013, the director of the tax office of △△ Tax Office seized each of the above claims against A based on the instant tax claim against the premise that A owns each of the claims listed in Appendix 2’s Schedule (HH Co., Ltd., Diplomatic Co., Ltd., SD Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., DY Shipping Co., Ltd., and their shares issued and dividends claim, etc.). On June 11, 2013, the director of the tax office of △△△ Tax Office attached each of the claims listed in the aforementioned Attached Table 2’s Claim List against A based on the instant tax claim against A (hereinafter “instant Attached Disposition 2”) (hereinafter “instant Attachment Disposition against A”).

F. On April 23, 2013, the head of the tax office of the Si/Gun/Gu has seized each of the above real estate based on the tax claim against the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff owned each of the real estate listed in the attached Table 3’s real estate list (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”).

G. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 2, 2013 against the instant disposition of imposition against the Plaintiff and the instant disposition of attachment Nos. 1 and 2 against the instant AA, but received a decision of dismissal on November 6, 2013. On July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition of attachment against the Plaintiff, but was dismissed on November 27, 2013.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 7 evidence, Eul's 1, 2, 5, 43 evidence (including number 2; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since A does not own the Plaintiff’s shares, a disposition of imposition against the Plaintiff of this case and each disposition of seizure based on which A had secondary tax liability on the premise that A is an oligopolistic shareholder of the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. The value of the Plaintiff’s net asset on April 25, 2013, which is the date of the payment deadline, is 000 won (=00HD x 143.03/HD x 143.03/HD) even if the Plaintiff bears the secondary tax liability for the Plaintiff’s tax liability, and the disposition of imposition exceeding the above amount and its attachment are unlawful.

Consolidatedly, the Defendants seized each of the above claims in the disposition of arrears against AA on the premise that the Defendants owned each of the claims listed in Appendix 2’s Schedule of Claim. Since each of the above claims is owned by the Plaintiff, the disposition of seizure 1 and 2 against A of this case is unlawful.

Article 40 (1) 1 and 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes recognizes the secondary tax liability of a corporation only in cases where the government intends to sell the shares owned or shares contributed by investors by re-auctions or by a private contract, and where the transfer of the shares owned or shares contributed by investors is limited by the law or the articles of incorporation of the corporation. Since the Plaintiff’s shares do not fall under the above matters, the second tax liability imposed on the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached 7 is as shown in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) AA is registered as the representative of DY Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.” in the name of a corporation) in Korea, including DY Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DY”) with an office located in △△△△dong-gu Seoul △△△△△△△△△, and Japanese corporations, such as Dshing and re-panty, DDashing Services (DCS; hereinafter referred to as “DCS”), Dshing Hong Kong, and Doshing Hong Kong, and Doshing Holdings Services (hereinafter referred to as “DCS”), which are substantially operated by the D Group consisting of foreign corporations, such as DD Holdings, Dock Holdings, Doshing Holdings, Dshing, Hong Kong, and Dshing Holdings.

DD Group has established Dock, around 190, which is in charge of financial affairs for the purchase and sale of vessels in Japan, Docks established in the Republic of Korea, Docks, Docks, DY Track Holdings, DY Shipping, Docks, etc. (i) the inner term "clocks" established in Liberia, Diveker Dokdo, etc., convenience for the ownership of vessels; (ii) the special purpose company, established for the purpose of ownership of one vessel from among its officers and employees, as its officers and employees; (iii) the main vessel transportation business of Docks, which is the vessel's main vessel's revenue, and (iv) the vessel's transportation business of Docks, which is the vessel's main vessel's revenue, and (v) the vessel's ownership of Docks and shares, (v) the vessel's main vessel's revenue, and (v) the vessel's ownership of Docks and shares, and (v) the vessel's ownership of Docks and shares, which are entrusted.

Secondly, each company belonging to the DD Group as above is a complicated multi-level investment structure using multiple pagescom (a phased investment structure in which the PD Group Company holds 100% shares) and the final shareholder through a stock title trust does not reveal the fact that it is AA through a stock trust.

Then, AA and Y established the Plaintiff, Hong Kong Investment Company (Capital of KRW 000) with the funds of AA for the purpose of preventing tax risks and promoting the separation of ownership and management by lowering the risk of being assessed as "resident" under the tax laws of the Republic of Korea, and reducing the connection between the affiliates of D Group, and promoting the separation of ownership and management, etc., and held 100% of the Plaintiff’s shares in AMH (no human and physical facilities are available), and held by AMH (no facilities are available), and held 100% of the Plaintiff’s shares in AMH shares in AM, but the shares of AMH owned by the Plaintiff were trusted to the FF of the H, which is a corporation owned by the “MG” pumps located in Ethma.

(v) After the applicant’s challenge, the Plaintiff raised 00 billion won from DD and DDR brokerage, deposited the money into the k bank account in the name of the Plaintiff established in the Hong Kong branch account in the name of the Plaintiff, and then paid 10 domestic real estate, including the D merchant lines, DY Shipping, SN Industries’s shares in the Dok branch account in the name of the Plaintiff, and the k bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, k bank account in the name of the Hong Kong branch account in the name of the Plaintiff, and purchased 10 domestic real estate, including D merchant lines, DY Shipping, SN Industries’s shares in the Dok branch account in attached Table 5.

⑹ 원고는 2011. 4. 30. 기준으로 별지6 '원고 순자산가액 계산표' 기재와 같이 자산합계 000원, 부채 합계 000원의 자산 및 부채를 보유하고 있다.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's 6, 7, and Eul's 1 to 45, before oral argument.

The purpose of body

D. Determination

(1) As to whether AA is an oligopolistic stockholder of the Plaintiff

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff was actually established with the funds of AA, and AMH, a shareholder of 100% of the Plaintiff, holds only the Plaintiff’s shares without human and physical facilities. AA owns 100% shares of AMH, and AA actually operates the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s subsidiaries. In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to deem AA as a shareholder holding 10% of the Plaintiff’s shares. Thus, the disposition of imposition against the Plaintiff on the premise that A is an oligopolistic shareholder is lawful.

B. As to the calculation of net asset value of the Plaintiff

According to the evidence Nos. 6-1 through 29 and Nos. 10-1 of the evidence Nos. 6-29 and 10-1 of the attached Table 6, the Plaintiff owns the shares of D merchant lines, DY Shipping, SD Heavy Industries, and H (previous SN Industries), and real estate located in Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dong (previous SN Industries), the total market price of the above assets as of April 30, 201 is KRW 00, and the total amount of the Plaintiff’s obligations is KRW 00,000, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s net assets are calculated as KRW 00,000, 000, - 000). As seen contrary thereto, each entry of the evidence Nos. 8 and 13 is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.

ally, as to shareholders of shares, such as D. D.

According to the facts found above, the plaintiff purchased Daehan and DY Shipping and SN Industries shares from AA, Y, etc. with capital and loan, and actually paid the price thereof (the seller of each of the above shares is several persons, such as AA, Y, A, A, etc., the shareholder of the above shares), and it is recognized that the plaintiff made 100% investment in establishing SD Heavy Industries on July 2007. The defendants also assessed the plaintiff's assets at KRW 000 (if the above shares are not owned by the plaintiff, the value of the above shares should be deducted from the plaintiff's assets if they are not owned by the plaintiff, and the secondary tax liability of the plaintiff should also be reduced within the scope of the above shares). Thus, it is unlawful as a disposition for arrears against A, which was conducted against A, as a disposition for arrears against A, under the premise that the above shares are owned by AA, and disposition against the third party's property against A, as a disposition for arrears against A. under the premise that the above shares are owned by AA.

As examined earlier, AA established the Plaintiff as to whether there is no applicant for purchase of the Plaintiff’s shares or the transfer of the Plaintiff’s shares is limited. After establishing the Plaintiff, AA held the Plaintiff’s nominal shareholders as AMH shares, and AA held the Plaintiff’s title trust with FF holding it by MG pumps located in the Bama, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s shares, a Hong Kong corporation located in the Bama, as a shareholder, can be sold by applying the Korean tax law. Moreover, it is reasonable to deem that there is a limitation on the transfer due to complicated legal relationship formation of the Plaintiff’s shares (or AA and the Plaintiff intentionally written on their own, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the requirements under Article 40(1)1 and 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes are not satisfied can be deemed to constitute a violation of good faith or an abuse of rights).

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the "tax disposition against the plaintiff in this case on the ground that AA is an oligopolistic shareholder" and "the attachment disposition against the plaintiff in this case on the ground that AA is legitimate, and the "the attachment disposition against the third party's property" in this case on the ground that the "the attachment disposition against the plaintiff in this case" in this case on the ground that it is unlawful and revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.