Seoul High Court 2011Nu25991 (2012.04.05)

Early High Court Decision 2009Du4264 (No. 11, 2010)

(Reorder of Trial) Any disposition to designate the Plaintiff as the oligopolistic stockholder of a corporation and to notify the payment to the person liable for secondary tax payment is legitimate.

(C) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is deemed to be an oligopolistic shareholder of the instant company, unless the Plaintiff proves that the Plaintiff was registered as a shareholder of the instant company from the date of the establishment of the instant company to the time of the instant disposition.

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Du9949 Value-Added Tax Second Taxpayer Designation, etc.

XX

Head of the Office of Government

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu25991 Decided April 5, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but the allegation on the grounds of appeal by the appellant does not include the grounds provided in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Reference materials.

If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final