As the Plaintiff constitutes a beneficial shareholder of the non-party company, the attachment disposition of the Plaintiff’s real estate owned by the second taxpayer is lawful.

Whether the Plaintiff is a beneficial shareholder of the non-party company, or the Plaintiff is merely a nominal shareholder, and his father is a beneficial shareholder of the company.

Articles 14 and 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2015Guhap52832 Revocation of attachment disposition

○ ○

the director of the tax office of Western

June 23, 2016

August 11, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The attachment disposition taken by the defendant on October 23, 2014 against the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") was established on October 21, 201 for the purpose of wholesale and retail business, etc., and thereafter the company's statement of changes in stocks, etc. is registered as holding the same shares as the shares listed below (hereinafter referred to as the "instant share shares") out of 50,000 shares issued by the Plaintiff during the period of 2013.

Number of shares held by stockholders in the business year

2011 Plaintiff 40,000

South west 10,000

2012 Plaintiffs 50,000

2013Plaintiff 30,000

△△△△20,000

B. After conducting a corporate integration investigation with respect to the non-party company, the defendant decided to notify the non-party company of the total amount of KRW 1,125,447,00 of corporate tax from 201 to 2013, and determined that it is difficult to collect the above national tax after the determination of national tax. On October 23, 2014, the plaintiff was deemed to be an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and was subject to seizure of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") owned by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 24(2) of the National Tax Collection Act (the seizure registration was completed on the 27th of the same month; hereinafter referred to as the "the seizure disposition of this case"), and on January 16, 2015, the plaintiff was designated as the second taxpayer of the non-party company.

C. On March 12, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on January 15, 2015, but was dismissed on June 4, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a case of additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is merely a formal shareholder who only lent his name upon the request of △△△ Party, the father of the Plaintiff, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff paid the share price of the instant shares or participated in the management of the Nonparty Company. Thus, the attachment disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual shareholder of the Nonparty Company is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

1) Article 39 subparag. 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “A shareholder or one limited partner and a person prescribed by Presidential Decree among his/her related parties, whose total amount of stocks held or investments exceeds 50/100 of the total number of outstanding stocks or investments of the relevant corporation and who actually exercises the rights thereto,” is an oligopolistic shareholder with secondary tax liability. The oligopolistic shareholder as mentioned above does not necessarily have the actual result of exercising shareholders’ rights, but is adequate if he/she is in a position to exercise shareholders’ rights with respect to the stocks held as of the date of establishment of tax liability (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du5354, Jul. 8, 2003). The fact of ownership of such stocks is proved by the list of shareholders, the statement of stock transfer, or the list of corporate register, etc.: Provided, That even in cases where a shareholder appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, if there are circumstances such as the name of the relevant corporation or the registration under a name other than the name of actual owner, it can only be viewed as a shareholder (see, etc.).

2) According to the reasoning of the above disposition, the Plaintiff was registered as holding stocks of the non-party company in excess of 50/100 in the statement of changes in stocks, etc. during the taxable period of the tax disposition that served as the basis of the instant attachment disposition. Thus, if the Plaintiff is merely a nominal shareholder unlike the above mentioned contents, such circumstances must be proved by the Plaintiff. However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence and the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to reverse the statement of changes in stocks, etc. and to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion (the fact that the Plaintiff was registered as a shareholder under the title trust of the △△△△△ Party, a real owner of the instant stocks), and there is no clear evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① In order for a third party, other than a shareholder on the register of shareholders, to assert that the name of a shareholder in the register of shareholders was trusted and that of the name borrowed, the fact of borrowing the name should be attested on the part of claiming a title trust relationship. Moreover, even if a third party, other than a shareholder on the register of shareholders, actually engaged in an act of paying the subscription price for shares, the underlying underlying relationship for such act, such as a title trust relationship, as well as a business relationship under which one party is liable to make an equity contribution, or a simple borrowing relationship of the subscription price for shares, may present various forms of legal relations, such as simple borrowing of the subscription price for shares. Therefore, solely on the ground that a third party provided an act of paying the subscription price for shares, such third party cannot be readily concluded as a real shareholder based on a title trust relationship under the name of the shareholder (see, e.

In this case, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff paid the share payment with respect to the instant shares as a business fund for deep-sea processing, an individual business operator, who was operated before the establishment of the non-party company. However, the bank account, which deposited the share payment, is not in the name of the non-party △△△△△ or the representative of deep-sea processing, but in the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff (see the evidence No. 23 and No. 24 of the Plaintiff). Under the current financial real name system, it is difficult to readily conclude that the said share payment was made by the party to the deposit contract solely based on the data submitted by the Plaintiff, without regard to the Plaintiff, by the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△.

② From January 1, 2012 to December 30, 2013 after the incorporation of the non-party company, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director on the corporate register of the non-party company. From January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff received total of KRW 48,000,000 from the non-party company and filed a report on the earned income tax.

③ The Plaintiff was the head of the team that comprehensively approves the management of the HCCP (HACC Anlytic Analys and Cryssis and Hazardous Points Control Standards) system as the head of the team organized by the Korean Veterinary Medical Association on March 12, 2013. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the HCC’s vice head of the HCC team at the time was the completion of the above training instead of the Plaintiff, but it is insufficient to recognize the above assertion solely on the written evidence No. 15 and the testimony of the witness YY based on the evidence No. 5.

④ On July 8, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred 20,000 shares of Nonparty Company to △△△△△△, and reported and paid capital gains tax on August 31, 2013. At the time when the instant liability for corporate tax in arrears was established (in particular, in 2013), the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have entirely unrelated to the exercise of rights on the instant shares due to academic or employment (the Plaintiff purchased the real estate No. 1 listed in the separate sheet No. 1 listed on October 31, 2013 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 4, 2013, and purchased the real estate No. 2 listed on the separate sheet listed on March 6, 2014 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 29, 2014).

⑤ In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, even if the Plaintiff, as alleged in the Plaintiff’s assertion, was transferred to the Plaintiff at the time of the establishment of the non-party company, to the Plaintiff’s school (such as the law department, school affairs, and master’s degree course of the Dong University) and the operation of the non-party company was practically recognized to have been exclusively in charge of the △△△△△, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders only in the form of the non-party company’s shares, regardless of the operation of the non-party company. There is considerable room to view that

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff is deemed to bear the secondary tax liability as an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

1

Sub-Dong dong MUD

2

public official law, order of law,

【National Tax Collection Act

Article 14 (Collection before Payment Deadline)

(1) If a taxpayer falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the head of a tax office may collect the determined national tax from the taxpayer even before the payment period:

1. When he is delinquent in national taxes; and

2. Where a taxpayer is subject to a disposition for arrears of local taxes or public charges;

3. When compulsory execution is being effected;

4. When a disposition of suspension of transaction is imposed at a clearing house under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act or the Check Act;

5. Where an auction has started;

6. Where a corporation is dissolved.

7. Where it is deemed that there is an attempt to evade (....) national taxes;

8. If the taxpayer has neither a domicile or temporary domicile nor a tax manager in Korea.

(2) If the head of a tax office intends to collect national taxes before the payment period under paragraph (1), he/she shall notify the taxpayer of such fact by fixing the payment period. In such cases, he/she shall notify the change of the payment period.

Article 24 (Attachment)

(1) The head of a tax office (including the director of a regional tax office in cases of delinquent taxpayers prescribed by Presidential Decree, taking into account the period of delinquency and the amount in arrears; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall seize property of taxpayers in

1. Where the taxpayer fails to completely pay national taxes and the additional dues by the designated period after receiving a notice of demand (including a peremptory notice);

2. Where a taxpayer fails to pay completely the tax by the designated date after receiving a payment notice prior to the payment period under Article 14 (1);

(2) If the head of a tax office deems that a taxpayer cannot collect national taxes after the determination of national taxes due to a cause falling under any subparagraph of Article 14 (1), he/she may seize the taxpayer's property to the extent of the estimated amount of national taxes.

(3) The head of a tax office shall obtain prior approval from the director of a regional tax office to attach property under paragraph (2).

(4) Where the head of a tax office attaches property under paragraph (2), he/she shall notify the relevant taxpayer in writing.

(5) The head of a tax office shall immediately release the property from attachment under paragraph (2) in any of the following cases:

1. Where a person notified pursuant to paragraph (4) provides security for tax payment and requests a release of seizure;

2. Where the amount of national taxes to be collected by the seizure is not determined until three months have passed after the date of the seizure.

(6) Where any property seized under paragraph (2) is money, deposits to be collected within the payment deadline, or securities, the head of the tax office may appropriate it for the fixed national taxes at the request of the taxpayer.

【National Tax Basic Act

Article 39 (Secondary Liability to Pay Taxes by Investor)

Where the property of a corporation is insufficient to cover the national tax, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears imposed on or to be paid by the corporation, any of the following persons as of the date on which the national tax liability is established shall assume secondary tax liability for the shortage: Provided, That in cases of an oligopolistic stockholder pursuant to subparagraph 2, the limit shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the shortage by the total number of outstanding stocks (excluding non-voting stocks; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) of the corporation or the total amount of investment, and by the number of stocks (excluding non-voting stocks) or the amount of investment of the

1. General partners;

2. A stockholder or one limited partner and a person prescribed by Presidential Decree from among his/her related parties, whose total amount of stocks held or investments exceeds 50/100 of the total number of outstanding stocks or investments of the relevant corporation and who actually exercise the rights thereto (hereinafter referred to as " oligopolistic stockholder").