Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap40155 (Law No. 13, 2013)

The plaintiff constitutes oligopolistic shareholders and thus is the original disposition party imposing the secondary tax liability.

(1) As of December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff did not report the change of shareholder status at the time of filing a corporate tax return for the year 2010; the Plaintiff reported and paid securities transaction tax on April 1, 201, along with the contract signed as of March 10, 201; and the actual payment was paid. As of the date of establishing the tax liability, the Plaintiff deemed the oligopolistic shareholder of the instant corporation as the date of the establishment of the tax liability and the initial disposition was lawful.

2013Nu208. Revocation of revocation of designation as a person liable for secondary tax payment

Park AA

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap40155 decided June 13, 2013

November 27, 2013

December 18, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. On November 24, 2011, the defendant designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer of the BB corporation and revoked all the imposition disposition of the value-added tax OOO(including additional OOOO) for the second period of 2010 and the wage and salary income tax for 2010.

1. cite the 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

The Plaintiff asserts that the transfer of 20,000 shares of the instant corporation as of December 20, 2010 does not constitute an oligopolistic shareholder of the instant corporation as of the date on which the liability to pay national taxes in arrears is established by transferring 20,000 shares of the instant corporation. However, in light of the various circumstances in the first instance trial, particularly the tax base return submitted to the competent tax office in relation to securities transaction tax is written on March 10, 201 by the transferor, and the contract prepared on the same day is attached (Evidence B, No. 8 and 9), even considering the circumstances and evidence, the Plaintiff’s transfer of 20,000 shares of the instant corporation as of March 10, 201, is justifiable. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion otherwise cannot be accepted.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.