Revocation of revocation of designation of secondary tax obligor

It is insufficient to recognize that the name of a shareholder was stolen or that it was not a shareholder of the non-party company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the plaintiff's allegation in this part is without merit.

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment of Contributors)

2014Guhap11385 Revocation of designation as a person liable for secondary tax payment

Mao

o Head of the tax office

November 12, 2015

December 3, 2015

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part that seeks revocation of the designation of a taxpayer against the Plaintiff is dismissed.

(c)

2. The Defendant designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer against the Plaintiff;

(a) impose each corporate tax listed in [Attachment I] Nos. 1 to 6 on February 4, 2013;

B. The imposition of each value-added tax listed in [Attachment 2] Nos. 1 to 11 of [Attachment 2] as of February 4, 2013;

C. Determination of imposition of each wage and salary income tax as listed in the list Nos. 1 through 6 No. 3 as of March 18, 2013

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

Designation of the secondary taxpayer in the attached Forms 1 through 3 against the Plaintiff by the Defendant

The administrative disposition shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a)O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'O') is plastic and raw material recycling and wholesale and retail trade;

corporation established in 196 for the purpose of

Production of raw materials for personal or plastics (PE or PVC products; hereinafter referred to as "rerenewable goods");

This has been sold.

B. The non-party company sells the recycled products and accounts in the name of the non-party company (the Nonghyup Bank).

An account in the name of 115-*******) and an account in the name of the plaintiff ( Nonghyup Bank 115-************2) and KimO.

After receiving an account in the name of 115-****7*6) (hereinafter referred to as 'unO' or the Plaintiff' account, the tax invoice was issued, and accordingly, the value-added tax return for each taxable period from 2002 to 2012 and the corporate tax was filed for each business year.

C. The OO regional tax office: (a) corporate tax on a non-party company from August 30, 2012 to November 16, 2012;

As a result of the consolidated investigation, the non-party company deposited in the borrowed name account from 2002 to 2012

The sales of 11,072,863,096 won was omitted.

D. The defendant, after being notified by the director of the regional tax office of the above results of the investigation, made the non-party conference.

on December 1, 2012, the total value-added tax for the period from February 2, 2002 to February 2, 2012

2,011,036,201 won shall be corrected and notified, and with respect to the amount of which ownership is unclear, the non-party company

The change in the total amount of KRW 10,33,577,694 after the disposition of income as bonus for the class* as the representative director.

On December 3, 2012, notice of correction and notification of the total amount of KRW 4,174,726,790 of corporate tax was given;

On January 15, 2013, the tax imposed total of KRW 3,544,240,750 on the earned income tax accrued from 2002 to 2012.

E. The defendant did not pay the above corporate tax, etc., and the plaintiff is an oligopolistic stockholder of the non-party company.

In light of the foregoing, pursuant to Article 39(1)2(a) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the non-party company is delinquent.

On February 4, 2013, the Plaintiff designated the secondary taxpayer, imposed each corporate tax and value-added tax on the Plaintiff, and imposed each tax on March 18, 2013.

(f) On February 28, 2013 and April 25, 2013, the Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the request, filed a petition for adjudication with the Director of the Tax Tribunal.

B. Each of the above claims was dismissed on August 19, 2014.

G. On the other hand, the non-party company has deposited part of the deposit amount of the borrowed account regardless of the sale.

on February 15, 2013, the Director of the Tax Tribunal of the Tax Tribunal of February 15, 2013, claiming that it should be excluded from omitting sales.

On February 27, 2014, the Director of the Tax Tribunal requested for adjudication, and on February 27, 2014, the non-party company

A review of whether the deposited amount is an omitted amount, and tax base and tax amount according to the results thereof.

A decision to correct the amount, etc. was made.

H. On April 25, 2014, the commissioner of the regional tax office of theOO shall comply with the order of the Director of the Tax Tribunal by the non-party company.

D. A notice of the results of a reinvestigation that reduces the amount of value-added tax, corporate tax, and disposal of income;

On June 23, 2014, the defendant was notified by the Director of the Regional Tax Office of the results of re-audit as above.

On June 25, 2014, the non-party company made a decision of correction of value-added tax, etc. according to the results of reinvestigation (hereinafter referred to as "each disposition taken against non-party company for each reduced or corrected non-party company"), and on the same day, the company also made a decision of correction in the same amount as that stated in the separate sheet 1 through 3 as a result of reinvestigation (hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of imposition on the date of each reduced or corrected original disposition") to the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 67, Eul evidence 3 and 9

Each entry, including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the claim for revocation of the designation of a taxpayer

ex officio, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the designation of the taxpayer against the Plaintiff

We examine the legal issues.

The secondary tax liability pursuant to Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be the primary taxpayer's default and other requirements.

by abstractly establishing a fact by occurrence of such fact and by notice of payment

It is specifically determined, and the second taxpayer's designation disposition alone is not enough to pay taxes.

Since its designation is not determined, it is an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

There is no choice but no (Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6632 delivered on September 15, 1995).

Therefore, the designation of a taxpayer against the plaintiff by the defendant is subject to an appeal litigation.

As such, the part seeking revocation of the designation of the taxpayer against the plaintiff among the lawsuit of this case is all parts.

Law is legitimate.

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff, a representative of the Nonparty Company, has become a shareholder by stealing the name of the shareholder from the formula*

The plaintiff is merely the actual shareholder of the non-party company, because it is merely the name of the name on the register.

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff is a shareholder of the non-party company cannot be conducted.

2.2

2) Each disposition against the non-party company is unlawful on the following grounds, and thus, on this premise:

Each disposition of this case is also unlawful.

The reason why the non-party company used the borrowed account for trading is the characteristics of the recycling industry.

This is because trading volume has increased with so-called ‘Madama', which is an intermediate merchant for commercial registration.Irema.

in the case of the non-party corporation due to the non-party corporation's failure to issue the tax invoice.

The non-party company has a difficulty in accounting or accounting, and the non-party company has used a borrowed account.

the sales of the reproduced product, however, the non-party company has received the sales

The tax invoice was not omitted and most of the sales payments deposited in the borrowed account was issued.

The prosecution also reported the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in relation to the tax evasion by force*

A disposition of non-prosecution was rendered with respect to the issue of the disposition of non-prosecution. Nevertheless, the defendant

was not reported solely on the ground that the account was used by the account, which was not deposited in the borrowed account.

is the same.

3) In addition, each of the dispositions in this case and each of the dispositions against the non-party company within the scope of 2002.

part concerning the portion belonging to the year 2007 has already been 5 years from the exclusion period prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes.

It is illegal that has been imposed after its lapse.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 4 shall be as listed in attached Table 4.

C. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes a substantial shareholder of the non-party company

A) Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that an unlisted corporation’s property shall be deemed an unlisted corporation.

If it is insufficient to appropriate national taxes, additional charges, and disposition fee for arrears imposed or payable by the corporation;

Any person who is liable for secondary tax payment for such shortage shall be a stockholder or partner with limited liability and

the total amount of stocks held or invested by a person prescribed by Presidential Decree among persons with special interest;

(2) If the limit exceeds 50/100 of the total number of shares issued or total amount of investment in the corporation

section 20, section 20, section 20, section 2, of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 18-2 subparagraph 1 of the Act provides that a person who has a relationship with a person with a special relationship shall be a relative.

Whether it constitutes an oligopolistic stockholder prescribed in paragraph (1) is a member of a majority stock ownership group.

and specifically, even if not involved in the management of the company, it shall be determined by the court.

No sole basis may be determined as being an oligopolistic shareholder, and the tax authority’s ownership of shares shall name the shareholder.

It shall be proved by data such as a statement of stock transfer or certified transcript of register, etc.;

However, even if the shareholder appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, the actual shareholder was abused; or

under the circumstances such as being registered in a name other than the name of the actual owner, only if any;

name alone, which does not constitute a shareholder, but which asserts that it is not a shareholder;

A person must prove (Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615 Decided July 9, 2004, etc.).

(u) 50 percent of the total number of outstanding shares or the total amount of investment of the corporation in question as above.

(1) The exercise of rights to shares referred to in subsection (1) of this section shall be

It does not necessarily require that the exercise of shareholders' rights should have actual results, but the law.

shareholders' rights with respect to the shares held as of the date of establishment of the tax liability;

As above, it should be deemed sufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du5354, Jul. 8, 2003).

B) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, health class No. 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 10

The following circumstances, in which evidence Nos. 11 and 12 are admitted to show the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the statement:

① The Plaintiff, a representative director of the Nonparty Company, was established by the Nonparty Company as the relationship between the ceremony and the Yong-Nam.

From 1996 to the time of each disposition of this case, the non-party company is registered as an internal director of the non-party company.

(2) The plaintiff, while taking advantage of his name * by force, has been demoted*

Non-public or criminal measures; 3. An account in the name of the Plaintiff (FFF)

15-****-7*6) has been continuously used in managing the turnover of the non-party company for a year;

The plaintiff is disadvantageous to the vice president of the non-party company from 2002 to 2013.

The plaintiff was paid his own personal mobile phone through the above account.

In addition to paying charges, the Plaintiff’s funds from the said account using his/her mobile phone;

(5) The fact that the dividends of the non-party company have been transferred to the plaintiff is recognized.

In this regard, the non-party company reflected such dividend payment in the accounting of the non-party company.

In the light of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the witness lecture* (name * written name) testimony

Only by itself, the Plaintiff was subject to taking advantage of the name of shareholder from Gangnam or the actual shareholder of the Nonparty Company.

It is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was not a party, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) Whether each disposition against the non-party company is legitimate

A) Each disposition of this case is within the scope of the second taxpayer under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

As such, the above liability for tax payment is an officer of each disposition against the non-party company, the principal taxpayer.

In the world, each disposition against the non-party company shall be taken, and less than

We will examine the legitimacy of the law.

B) We examine each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 18 through 67 with the purport of the whole pleadings,

The following shall apply to the omission of sales in the year 2002 through 2007 of each disposition against the company

As seen above, we find the illegality of this Court (this Court, October 29, 2015, 2014Guhap613).

In 208 each disposition against the non-party company, the court rendered a revocation judgment on the above part.

The part related to the omission of sales in 2012 is legitimate.

(1) Of each disposition against the non-party company, the part concerning the omission of sales in 202, 2003, and 2007

(1) The amount deposited in the corporate passbook of a non-party company in 2002 shall be total.

429,867,404 won and the amount deposited in the borrowed account is KRW 283,536,250 in total. The non-party company issued tax invoices equivalent to KRW 941,28,905 in total and reported sales in 2002, the amount deposited in the borrowed account of the non-party company in 2003,536,250 won (= KRW 429,867,404 in total + KRW 283,536,250 in total + KRW 283,50 in total). The non-party company issued tax invoices equivalent to KRW 941,28,905 in total and reported sales in 202. ② The amount deposited in the borrowed account of the non-party company in 2003 is KRW 693,971,114 in total, and the amount deposited in the borrowed account is KRW 450,049,318 in total. The non-party company is a total of KRW 14,144,0

450,049,318 won more than 1,401,816,358 won was issued and reported on sales in 2003. ③ The amount deposited in the non-party company’s corporate account in 2007 is 1,514,293,037 won in total, and the amount deposited in the borrowed account is 1,007,847,000 won in total, and the non-party company did not have any more than 2,522,514,293,037 won in total and more than 1,007,007,847,000 won in total and more than 2,603,90,347,000 won in total, which was more than 2,000,000 won in the non-party company’s account’s account’s account’s revenue omitted. The fact that the non-party company issued the non-party company’s account was found to have no more than the amount deposited in the account’s account.

(2) sales in the year 204, 2005, and 2006 of each disposition against the non-party company

Part ① Amount deposited in the corporate passbook of the non-party corporation in 2004

1,265,353,919 won, and the amount deposited in the borrowed account is 868,288,923 won in total, and the non-party company

1,803,051,075 won was issued and reported on sales in 2004. ② The amount deposited in the corporate account of a company other than the company other than the company in 2005 is 1,308,414,123 won in total, and the non-party company issued a tax invoice of 2,484,615,592 won in total and reported on sales in 2005. ③ The amount deposited in the corporate account of the non-party company in 2006 is 1,508,746,393 won in total, and the amount deposited in the borrowed account is 1,566,942,00 won in total and 2,784,393,915 won in total, and the amount deposited in the non-party company's account was 206,000 won in which the non-party company did not report the sales amount deposited in the account of the non-party company other than the company's second account.

Inasmuch as there is no sufficient evidence to prove that there was an omission in sales equivalent to the input amount, the non-party ultimately

Of each disposition against the company, the portion related to the omission of sales in the year 2004, 2005, and 2006 shall be lawful to the extent that the above amount is deemed to be an omission amount in sales. However, the part related to the omission of sales in the year 2004, 2005, and 2006 among each disposition against the non-party company is unlawful, but the legitimate amount of tax is not calculated based on the submitted data, and the same applies to the part related to the omission of sales in the year 204, 2005, and 2006 among each disposition against the non-party company, which is premised on each disposition against the non-party company. Therefore, it

- - Future -

(unit: Won)

The amount of separate tax invoice issued shall be the difference (amount omitted in sales) between the amount deposited in the borrowed account of the corporation account.

1,803,051,075 1,265,353,919 s u3008,288,923 s u30030,591,767

484, 615, 592 1,369,573,031 【3001, 308, 414, 123 193, 371,562

2,784, 343, 915 1,508, 746, 393 【3001, 566, 942,00 【300 Ma344, 478 in 2006

(3) The omission of sales in the year 2008 through 2012 among each disposition against the non-party company

① The Plaintiff collected sales from Nonparty Company to a borrowed-name account.

(a) In consultation with the final buyer, the next final buyer has issued a false tax invoice equivalent to the amount;

on deposit with the corporate account and on deposit of the amount, from the borrowed name account to the above final purchaser, an amount equal to

because the transaction was conducted in the form of returning the party, the non-party company shall not omit the sale.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and ② year 2008.

For the year 2012, the issue amount of tax invoices issued by the non-party company shall be the corporate account for each business year.

money deposited in a borrowed account is not related to the sale, because it is almost consistent with the amount of the deposit; or

The non-party company or the non-party company has reported the sale lawfully.

The plaintiff must prove that the non-party company has properly maintained the grounds for the accounting process in relation thereto.

It was not left, and no objective evidence is submitted, and 3 another.

The Plaintiff’s omission of sales using the borrowed account in a criminal case of tax evasion against Gangnam*

However, this part of the disposition is alleged to be unlawful because there was a non-prosecution disposition on charges of non-prosecution.

The reason for non-prosecution disposition is that it is difficult to consider the total amount of inflow of borrowed account as an omission of sale.

This circumstance alone proves that the non-party company did not withhold sales.

corporation, and the class* shall not be deemed to have been deposited in the borrowed name account at the time of the investigation of the non-party corporation.

(4) The defendant shall decide on re-audit by the Director of the Tax Tribunal.

1) (Amount deposited in the corporate account + Amount deposited in borrowed account) - Amount of tax invoice issued

Pursuant to the results of the tax investigation of the non-party company, the non-party from among the deposits in the borrowed account

The non-party company's omission in sales through the submission of documentary evidence related to the amount of the deposit.

(1) The remaining amount shall be deemed as an omission in sales only if the remaining amount is not deemed as an omission in sales.

In full view of the fact that the defendant issued each disposition against the non-party company, the non-party company

each disposition against the non-party company that did not report the sales of the amount equivalent to the money deposited.

There is no illegality in the part of the year 2008 or 2012 among them.

C) Accordingly, each of the dispositions in this case premised on each of the dispositions against the non-party company

The portion belonging to the year 2002 to 2007 shall be revoked in an unlawful manner, and each disposition of this case shall be

Among them, the portion belonging to the year 2008 through 2012 is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion on it is justified.

shall not be effective.

3) Whether the exclusion period has expired

As seen above, among each of the dispositions of this case, the amounts belonging to the year 2002 to 2007

As long as the part is illegal, the exclusion period for imposition claimed by the plaintiff as to the above part shall be limited

shall not be determined separately.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the designation of the taxpayer against the plaintiff is ambiguous.

Two unlawful and dismissed each of them, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim except the above part is the above-mentioned crime.

Each claim shall be accepted on the grounds stated above, and the remainder shall not be justified, and all of the claims shall be accepted.

It is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.