Examination-China-2015-0043 ( October 22, 2015)

The designation of the secondary tax payer against the plaintiff is legitimate.

The designation of the person liable for secondary tax payment is legitimate, since the plaintiff argues that he is merely a shareholder, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Article 39 (Secondary Liability to Pay Taxes by Investor)

2016Guhap51 Revocation of the designation of the person liable for secondary tax payment

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

June 28, 2016

August 30, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s designation of the secondary tax obligor against the Plaintiff on March 23, 2015 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a)CC Construction Co., Ltd. (formerly, DD Construction Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “CC Construction”)

C) On June 9, 2003, the FF City GG HH 309-2 is located for the purpose of civil engineering projects.

A corporation established and closed on April 29, 2013, and value-added tax and corporation from 2010 to 2012

The total amount of 10 taxable items, including tax, was 395,146,790 won in arrears.

B. The Defendant considers that at the time when the obligation to payCC Construction was established, total shares owned by both the Plaintiff and its related parties correspond to 100% of the total outstanding shares ofCC Construction (20,000 shares), and thus, the Plaintiff is designated as the secondary taxpayer ofCC Construction and constitutes the Plaintiff’s share ratio (10%) out of the outstanding tax amount (10%)

39,541,679 won was imposed and notified (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

C. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and requested the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for a national tax review:

October 22, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 10, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s representative ofCC Construction and the Plaintiff’s representative form is only the Plaintiff’s nominal lending shareholder upon the request of the High Court of Justice, and did not have invested in or participated in the management ofCC construction. Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff designated as the secondary taxpayer is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 39(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 201)

In addition, whether a person constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013) shall be determined by whether the person is a member of a group of stocks owned by at least 51/100 in a special relationship. It is not necessary for the person to whom the person in question exercises a de facto control over the interest by participating in the management of the corporation, or exercises a de facto control over the rights to 51/100 or more of the total number of stocks issued by the corporation. Meanwhile, the fact of ownership of stocks is proved by the data such as the register of stockholders, the statement of stock transfer, or the register of corporate register of the corporation, etc. by the tax authority. However, if the tax authority appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, it cannot be deemed as a shareholder solely under the name of theCC complex, but this must be proved by the title holder who is not a shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1658, Jul. 9, 2008).

In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to this case, as a whole, evidence Nos. 2, 3-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, as to the whole, the total number of outstanding shares issued at the time of establishment ofCC was 20,000 shares and 20,000 shares issued at around December 9, 2013. The total number of outstanding shares issued at the time of establishment ofCC was 40,000 shares issued at the time of 20,000 shares. The certified copy of the register of CC's corporate register is registered as the auditor by the plaintiff, the High CourtJ, the plaintiff's leakage, the plaintiff's spouse, and KimK, the plaintiff's director, as the plaintiff's director. According to the National Tax Service's list of shareholders records reflecting the detailed statement on changes in the shares ofCC's construction, the plaintiff has a duty to pay 10% of the total amount of outstanding shares since 2003 to the present date.

The plaintiff asserts that he is only a shareholder in the form ofCC Construction, but it is so argued.

As shown above, it is difficult to believe the entry of Gap evidence 8 as it is, and each entry of Gap evidence 4 through 7.

Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.