1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is merely a formal shareholder registered in the register of shareholders of the D company under the name of the D company upon the request of the I who actually operated the D company, and is not in the position to exercise shareholders' rights.

Therefore, the taxation disposition that the tax authority imposed on the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder of the D Company is unlawful, so the above dividend table should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. As long as the judgment tax disposition cannot be deemed to be null and void as it is reasonable, there is an illegal ground to revoke the judgment tax disposition.

The taxation disposition is valid until it is legally revoked by the fairness or executory power of the administrative act.

As such, the validity of the taxation disposition cannot be denied in the civil procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da20179, Aug. 20, 199). In order to automatically invalidate an administrative disposition, the disposition is unlawful, as well as the defect must be important and apparent. The apparent defect here refers to an obvious defect in the administrative disposition itself (in external form).

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da26690 delivered on October 22, 1991). However, even if the tax authority mistakenly designated a person registered in the register of shareholders of a stock company which is a taxpayer as a secondary taxpayer and notified such person as the oligopolistic shareholder of the company, it cannot be deemed as a tax disposition with serious and apparent defects, which are grounds for invalidation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5245 delivered on December 7, 1990). With respect to this case, the Health Unit and Article 39 subparag. 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes are either imposed on or paid to the corporation as the property of the corporation.