Seocho 2011west 1918 (Law No. 107, 2011)

Whether it is an oligopolistic shareholder or not shall be determined by whether it is a member of a group owned by a majority of shares.

Whether it is an oligopolistic stockholder shall be determined by whether it is a member of a group of stocks owned by the majority, and in detail, even if there is no fact involved in the management of the company, it cannot be determined that it is not an oligopolistic stockholder, and the fact of ownership of stocks should be proved by the tax authority based on the data such as the list of stockholders, statement of

Article 40 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Guhap28073 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Park AA

Head of the District Tax Office

November 30, 2012

November 30, 2012

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On April 19, 2011, the Defendant designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of BBBS Co., Ltd. and revoked the imposition of KRW 000 of LBS and KRW 000 of value-added tax for the Plaintiff in 2009.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. BBBS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CCS Korea”) was established on April 21, 2007 and operated a wholesale and retail business for computer peripheral devices, and was in arrears with the amount of KRW 000,000, and the value-added tax for the second period in 2009. The Plaintiff was registered as a director of the delinquent corporation until March 24, 2008, and the national tax integration system (the current status of shareholders) stated that the Plaintiff owned 10,000,000 shares of the delinquent corporation from April 21, 207 to December 31, 2009, and the Plaintiff was in arrears with the amount of KRW 209,000,000, and the amount of value-added tax for the second period in 200,000,000,000 shares of the oligopolistic shareholder of the delinquent corporation. The Defendant determined that the Plaintiff was an oligopolistic shareholder of the delinquent corporation (99%) and then designated the Plaintiff’s tax payment notice under Article 2019(30.1.9).1.

C. On May 16, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal, but the said request was dismissed on July 7, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The whole purport of the arguments, the non-sovered facts, evidence 510, evidence 11, and evidence 1 and 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff resigned from office as a director of the delinquent corporation on March 24, 2008, and transferred 9,900 shares of the delinquent corporation to DoD, and it cannot be viewed as a shareholder of the delinquent corporation after that. Therefore, the disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff is a shareholder of the delinquent corporation during the taxable period of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Paper in the Appendix

C. Determination

Whether it constitutes an oligopolistic stockholder under Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be determined by whether it is a member of a group of stocks owned by the majority. Specifically, even if there is no fact involved in the management of the company, it cannot be determined that it is not an oligopolistic stockholder. The fact of stock ownership is proven by the tax authority through the register of stockholders, the statement of stock movement status, the register of corporate register, etc., and, however, if it appears to be a single stockholder in light of the above data, if there are circumstances such that the tax authority uses the name of the stockholder or registers it in the name other than the name of the real owner, it cannot be viewed as a stockholder only in the name of the stockholder. However, in light of the above legal principles, the title holder who asserts that it is not a stockholder must prove that it is not a stockholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du983, Sept. 11, 2008).

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition.