logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.07.17 2014구합76042
법인세부과처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s value-added tax amounting to KRW 30,660,280 for the year 2009, October 24, 2013, and KRW 29,282,570 for the Plaintiff A.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant corporation”) was established on October 10, 2006 as a corporation engaged in musical instruments and sound system wholesale, retail, and trade business. The details of the shareholder change on the shareholder registry of the instant corporation are as follows.

(2) On October 18, 2006, Plaintiff A 10,000 to August 8, 2010, Plaintiff B 10,000 to April 17, 2012, Plaintiff B 10,000 from August 9, 2012, 200 to April 18, 2012, Plaintiff B 10,000 to April 18, 2012

B. The instant corporation did not pay 142,110,000 won in total, including seven corporate tax in the business year 2009, as follows.

The amount of delinquent taxes (unit: 31,917 Plaintiff A, A, 209, 33,419, A, A, 2009, 38,256, A, A, 2010, value-added tax 9,609, A, A, 144, A, 18,878, B, 885, B, 2012, total of 142,111, the amount of earned income tax of 2010, A, A, 2010, 9,609, A, A, 144, A, A, 144, A, 18, B, 2010.

C. On October 24, 2013 and November 2, 2011 of the same year, the Defendant: (a) deemed the Plaintiffs as the oligopolistic shareholder of the instant corporation; (b) deemed the Plaintiffs as the secondary taxpayer for payment of delinquent national taxes; and (c) issued a notice of payment of KRW 17,709,910 to Plaintiff B on November 1, 2013, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiffs filed an objection with the Defendant on January 9, 2014, but received a decision of dismissal on January 28, 2014, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 30, 2014, but received a decision of dismissal on October 21 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the shares of this case were held in title trust by D, and since the actual shareholders of the shares of this case are D, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination 1.

arrow