beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-9742 (2016.07)
Case Number of the previous trial
Cho High Court Decision 2015Do1745 (O6.04)
Title
The plaintiff is deemed to have lent only the name of shareholder upon request of punishment.
Summary
There is no evidence to view that the Plaintiff was involved in the non-party company as the shareholder of the non-party company, and at least, it is sufficient to view that the Plaintiff lent only the name of the shareholder upon
Related statutes
Article 39 (Scope of Related Parties for Secondary Liability for Tax by Investors of Article 20 of Enforcement Decree of the National Technology Act and Scope of Secondary Liability for Tax by Investors of Article 39 of the National Technology Act
Cases
2016Nu42762 Revocation of the disposition of revocation of comprehensive real estate holding tax
Plaintiff
United Kingdom A
Defendant
BB Director of the Tax Office
Conclusion of Pleadings
October 5, 2016
Imposition of Judgment
October 26, 2016
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00,00 for comprehensive real estate tax in 2009 against the Plaintiff on September 22, 2014, KRW 00,00 for comprehensive real estate tax in 200, KRW 00,000 for special rural development tax, KRW 00,000 for comprehensive real estate tax in 2010, KRW 000 for special rural development tax, KRW 00,000 for comprehensive real estate tax in 2011, KRW 00,000 for special rural development tax, KRW 0,000 for special rural development tax in 200, KRW 00 for comprehensive real estate tax in 2012, KRW 00 for special rural development tax in 200 for special rural development tax, and KRW 00,000 for the second period of value-added tax in 20 for 203.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Conclusion
The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.