National Tax Service Review and other 2010-0063 ( October 25, 2011)

If a person registered as a shareholder under title trust is a secondary taxpayer, it is wrong to designate such person as a secondary taxpayer.

Although the provision on the donation of trust property in the name of a corporation under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act applies to a person who owns all of the corporation’s stocks, the taxation disposition is unlawful on the premise that the person is the second taxpayer, even though it is registered as a shareholder of the corporation under the title trust and cannot be deemed as

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

XX

The director of the tax office

November 23, 2011

January 18, 2012

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 208 against the Plaintiff on May 25, 2010 (29,265,160 won, corporate tax for the year 2008 (6,858,960 won, value-added tax for the first term of 2009 (16,650,970 won), the first term of value-added tax for the year 2009 (16,650,970 won, the first term of 103,430 won, the first term of 209 (103,47,240 won, the first term of 47,240 won, the first term of 209 (71,526,090 won, the first term of 209)-added tax for the year 209 (47,240 won, and 5,411,50 won for the year 209).

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. (1) Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party Construction”) was established on May 30, 2005 for the purpose of building construction business, etc. and was dissolved on December 1, 2010. At the time of its establishment, SongA was registered as a representative director and the Plaintiff respectively as a director.

(2) The non-party company defaulted the value-added tax for the second term of 2008 KRW 29.265.160, the corporate tax for the year 2008 KRW 6,658,960, the value-added tax for the first term of 2009 KRW 16,650,970, the value-added tax for the first term of 2009 KRW 103,430, the value-added tax for the April 2009, the value-added tax for the first term of 2009 KRW 477,240, the value-added tax for the first term of 209 KRW 71,526,09, the value-added tax for the first term of 209 KRW 477,240, the corporate tax for the year 209 KRW 5,411,50, and the corporate tax for the year 2009.

(3) The Plaintiff, from 2005 to 2009, was registered in the register of shareholders as shareholders holding 50,000% of the shares issued by Nonparty Company.

B. When the property of the non-party company was difficult to collect the above delinquent taxes, the defendant designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer for the amount of national taxes in arrears of the non-party company on April 9, 2010, and notified the plaintiff of the payment of the above delinquent taxes on May 25, 2010 (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

C. In response to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant on August 20, 2010, but dismissed on September 10, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 15, 2010, but was dismissed on February 25, 2011 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6632, Sept. 15, 1995). However, the second taxpayer designation disposition itself appears to have verified the instant disposition not subject to appeal litigation, since it appears that the Plaintiff actually fulfilled the instant disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu632, Sept. 15, 1995).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 2-1 to 6, 3-1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The representative director of the non-party company acquired the entire shares of the non-party company in title trust with the plaintiff, and actually operated the above company. Thus, the plaintiff is not an oligopolistic stockholder of the non-party company, and the disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff is an oligopolistic stockholder who is the second taxpayer for delinquent

(b) Related statutes;

C. Determination

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff holds 100% of the shares of the non-party company in its name, and barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the non-party company’s delinquent taxes pursuant to Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615, Jul. 9,

On the other hand, under the following circumstances, Gap's 5 through 11 (including Serial number)'s testimony, and the representative director of the non-party company's company registered its business from August 2002 to engage in construction business, and it seems that the non-party company did not have any obligation without income in 2004, which was before the incorporation of the non-party company. When establishing the non-party company, it is difficult to view that the non-party company's 50,000,000 won was paid to the depository company under its own name, and the non-party company was established with the non-party company's 50,000,000 won, and the non-party company was established with the non-party company's own account under the pre-title trust agreement with the non-party company to whom the plaintiff would have any effect on the transfer and takeover of shares of the non-party company (the non-party company's 500,000,00 won, which appears to be its own account.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons of the judgment as per Disposition.