beta
Main Issues
The meaning of oligopolistic stockholders with secondary tax liability
Summary of Judgment
In order to erase the secondary tax liability as an oligopolistic stockholder to the stockholders of a corporation under the provisions of subparagraph 2 of Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the tax liability for delinquent national taxes shall be in a position to substantially control the operation of the corporation as of the date on which
[Reference Provisions]
Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 86Nu105 Decided July 8, 1986, 86Nu727 Decided January 20, 1987
Plaintiff-Appellee
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Defendant, the superior, or the senior
Head of Yongsan Tax Office
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu714 delivered on January 30, 1987
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act to impose secondary tax liability as an oligopolistic shareholder on the shareholder of a corporation pursuant to Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be an oligopolistic shareholder as of the date on which the liability to pay delinquent national taxes is established and shall be in a position to substantially control the operation of the corporation. Thus, the court below determined based on evidence that the plaintiffs transferred all stocks and the management right of the non-party 1 corporation held by the plaintiffs prior to the date on which the liability to pay delinquent national taxes of this case is established to the non-party, and therefore, there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the above purport.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)