The part of the lawsuit of this case that the defendant seeks confirmation of the actual shareholder status C as the corporation is dismissed.

The defendant.

1. Ex officio determination as to the part of the lawsuit for which the defendant seeks confirmation as the actual shareholder of C

A. On May 25, 2012, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, while establishing C on May 25, 2012, owns 100% of the shares, was registered in the register of shareholders as if the Plaintiff owns it. The Plaintiff is a shareholder in the form of C,

Nevertheless, the tax authority imposed taxes on the Plaintiff on the national taxes, additional dues, etc. in arrears by C, by deeming that the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and thus the secondary tax liability.

Therefore, the plaintiff is expected to make a subsequent request for correction to the tax authority based on the judgment that the actual shareholder of C is the defendant. Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is the benefit of confirmation.

B. 1) Determination 1 ex officio in a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation is recognized only when the benefit of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status and to obtain a judgment of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da21643, Mar. 30, 2017). Furthermore, barring any special circumstance, a lawsuit for confirmation is allowed in cases where there is a benefit to immediately determine the current rights or legal relations between the parties to the dispute, and in general, it does not constitute a lawsuit for confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da35565, 3572, May 10, 196). However, even if the Plaintiff received a judgment against the Defendant, as stated in the claim for a taxation against the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff was given the same confirmation as indicated in the claim for a taxation against the Defendant, which is a third party, does not affect the effect of taxation against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff is the most effective and appropriate means to directly dispute the validity of the taxation disposition in the procedure of administrative litigation, request for correction, etc. against the tax authorities.