The plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually exercised his/her right as an oligopolistic stockholder.

Since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually exercised its rights as an oligopolistic stockholder, each of the dispositions of this case in this case based on a different premise is unlawful.

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2017Guhap1756 Nullification of the imposition of corporate tax

AA

BB Director;

August 30, 2018

October 11, 2018

1. The disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 000 won (including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of BB by the Defendant on 000.00.00

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. BB (hereinafter “B”) is a corporation mainly engaged in the construction business. The Plaintiff owns 000 shares of 40% of the total shares of B. BB (hereinafter “B”). BB reported to the Defendant on October 000, but did not pay KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year of 000. The Defendant notified BB of the correction of corporate tax on October 00, 000, but BB did not pay the corporate tax on October 00, 2000. The Plaintiff submitted a detailed statement of transfer of shares from DB’s acquisition of shares of 0 million won from D on October 00, 2000.

D. On October 00, 000, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff to pay KRW 000 (including additional taxes) in total [including KRW 000 (including additional taxes), KRW 000 (including additional taxes), and KRW 000 (including additional taxes) for corporate tax of KRW 000 on KRW 200,000 for corporate tax of KRW 200,000 for corporate tax of KRW 200 (including additional taxes)] on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired more than 1/2 of the BB’s shares withCC pursuant to Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and constitutes the secondary taxpayer (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

E. On 00.00.000, the Plaintiff filed a tax appeal against each of the dispositions of this case, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on 0.00.00.00. The Tax Tribunal made a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim. The facts that there is no ground for recognition, Gap’s 1 through 3, 6, 7, and Eul’s 1 through 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff only lent the name of the shareholder upon the request of DD, which is a shareholder of BB, and was not a substantial shareholder, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of BB on the premise that the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder of BB is illegal.

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

If the ownership of the income, profit, property, act, or transaction, which is the object of taxation, is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom such income, profit, property, act, or transaction belongs, the tax-related law shall apply (Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). On the other hand, whether it falls under an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be determined by whether it is a member of a group holding stocks of the majority and whether it is not an oligopolistic shareholder, even if there is no participation in the management of the company, and the fact of ownership of stocks shall not be determined by the tax authority alone. The fact of ownership of stocks shall be proved by the data such as the list of shareholders, the statement of stock transfer, or the register of corporate register, etc., if it appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data. However, even if it appears to be a single shareholder, it shall not be deemed a shareholder merely in the name of the shareholder, but it shall be proved by the title holder who is not a shareholder (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615

A) At the time of establishment of BB, DD acquired BB’s 000 shares, and was appointed as an auditor on October 00, 000,000. (B) The Plaintiff and DD entered into a transfer contract on October 00, 000, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract on transfer of BB shares. The Plaintiff only delivered the certificate of seal impression and seal toCC upon the request ofCC, and did not directly conclude a transfer contract with D. The Plaintiff was also registered as an auditor of BB on the same day as the conclusion of the instant transfer contract.

C) Meanwhile, on the grounds that the representative director of the construction company attempted to rape and attempted to commit rape with BB in the course of entering into a new joint venture agreement with BB around October 000, he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months in the Jeonju District Court of 000.00. Militarysan Branch of the Jeonju District Court of 0000, and filed an appeal (No. 000, the Jeonju High Court of Gwangju High Court of 000) and the final appeal (No. 000, the dismissal judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, significant facts in this court, witness D's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

3) Specific determination

At the time when the Plaintiff’s liability to pay corporate tax, etc. was established, the fact that the Plaintiff is registered as the nominal holder holding 30% of the shares in the register of shareholders of the instant corporation is as seen earlier. However, in full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was merely a nominal shareholder, and that the Plaintiff’s actual shares of BB in the Plaintiff’s name were D, based on the following circumstances, based on the entries in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, witness D’s testimony, and the overall purport of pleadings.

① From the date of being registered as BB’s shareholder and auditor until BB closes its business, the Plaintiff was residing in 0000, and was prepared to enter the private teaching institute, and was not involved in the actual operation of BB. ② DD testified that the Plaintiff used only the Plaintiff’s name formally upon request from the representative director of the denying B, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff actually paid D amounting to KRW 0 million for the share transfer contract price of this case. ③ DD testified to ○○, who was the representative of BB’s transaction partner, and was registered as BB’s shareholder and auditor, was entered in the course of rape in the instant transfer contract. It is consistent with the statement of DD that it would be possible for BB to have been changed to the other name and received again, and that ○○○ testified testified testified was sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year and 6 years for rape, and that it is consistent with the statement that it was final and conclusive.

④ It is recognized that the Plaintiff appears to have exercised the right as a shareholder or concurrent auditor B, such as a written consent to audit and inspection, written consent to shorten the general meeting of shareholders, etc. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had affixed the seal without knowing what date it was actually used upon the request ofCC. D also testified that D also used the Plaintiff’s seal or identification card in a necessary situation.

⑤ The Plaintiff does not seem to have received dividends or received profits as a shareholder of BB.

4) Sub-committee

Ultimately, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually exercised its rights as an oligopolistic shareholder BB pursuant to Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Accordingly, each of the dispositions of this case based on a different premise is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.