Whether the treasury stocks are included in the total stocks issued when determining an oligopolistic stockholder

Since its own stocks are stocks without voting rights or right to claim dividends, it cannot be said that there is an error of law such as misconception of facts or failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations against the rules of evidence in determining oligopolistic stockholders.

Article 39 (Secondary Liability for Tax Payment of Contributors)

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the plaintiff, while keeping the share certificates of the shares of this case on August 192, 192, determined to take over the shares of this case from the largest ○○, the right holder of the shares of this case, and obtained the shares of this case by being delivered a document of transfer. Therefore, even if the plaintiff did not transfer the ownership on the register of shareholders, it shall be "shareholders" under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes concerning the shares of this case. Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder, who actually exercises the right to 51/10 or more of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company as of the date when the liability for payment of corporate tax and value-added tax is established, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds for appeal

2. On the second ground for appeal

The head of a tax office cannot be deemed to have expressed the public opinion that the second taxpayer of the non-party company, including the plaintiff, would not impose taxes on the non-party company, because the defendant, who is the main taxpayer, knew that he was the second taxpayer, did not know that he was the second taxpayer, and did not impose taxes on the non-party company. In addition, even if the disposal of delinquent national taxes is made on the non-party company, it merely does not exercise the right to collect taxes, and it does not extinguish the national tax liability, and the second taxpayer is liable to pay taxes on the non-party company, because the amount of additional dues and increased additional dues after the date of disposal of deficit, which is the main taxpayer, cannot be deemed to violate the principle of good faith or trust protection. The judgment of the court below to this purport is justifiable, and it cannot be said that there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the theory of denial of legal personality, the principle of substantial taxation, the principle of trust and good faith, and the principle of protection of trust, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. On the third ground for appeal

The statutes applicable to the scope of liability for tax payment, etc. are not the statutes at the time of tax imposition disposition, but the statutes at the time of the establishment of liability for tax payment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal that the scope of liability for secondary liability for tax payment of this case, which had already been established prior to the enforcement of the Framework Act on National Taxes as amended on December 28, 1998, should be limited retroactively by applying the said amended Act, is without merit.

In addition, in cases where the law was revised favorably to taxpayers after the date of establishment of tax liability, if the revised law did not have any separate transitional provision on retroactive application, the revised law cannot be applied retroactively solely on the ground that it was revised favorably to taxpayers. Therefore, there is no ground for appeal on this point.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.