Whether it is an oligopolistic stockholder with the secondary tax liability

holding 65% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of a person with a special interest and

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

2. All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

피고가 2008. 7. 1.자로, (1) 원고 박☆☆에 대하여 한 ① 2005년 부가가치세 29,699,990원(가산세 포함, 이하 같다), 가산금 890,990원, ② 2006년 부가가치세 3,916,170원, 가산금 117,480원, ③ 2005사업연도 법인세 64,774,260원, 가산금 1,943,220원, (2) 원고 김★★에 대하여 한 ① 2005년 부가가치세 8,909,990원, 가산금 267,290원, ② 2006년 부가가치세 1,174,850원, 가산금 35,240원, ③ 2005사업연도 법인세 19,432,270원, 가산금 582,960원의 각 부과처분을 취소한다.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

(a) Taxation disposition with respect to ○○○ Stock Company (hereinafter referred to as a “Nonindicted Company”) by the director of the Seocho Tax Office;

(1) Disposition: Value-added tax for 1 year 2005 59,39,990, value-added tax for 2 year 2006 7,832,350, and corporate tax for 205 129,548,520, respectively.

(2) Grounds for disposition: ① during the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2005, omission of the sales amount of KRW 400 million related to tecium construction, which was contracted by Macium 100-8 located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, 100-8 (hereinafter “the instant sales amount”), and ② omission of the total sales amount of KRW 587 million generated from Dongbu Fire, Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and Seoul Hoban Department during the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2006.

B. The defendant's disposition of this case against the plaintiffs

(1) Status of the plaintiffs

1. Plaintiff Park Young-ri, a representative director of the non-party company, holding 50% of the shares issued.

② 원고 김★★(원고 박☆☆의 처) 一 소외회사의 이사로서 그 발행주식 15% 보유

(2) Details of disposal: Imposition of each value-added tax and corporate tax stated in the purport of the claim (pro rata distribution in proportion to the shares ratio held by the plaintiffs among the amount of taxation imposed on the company)

(3) Grounds for disposition: Imposition of secondary tax liability on oligopolistic stockholders pursuant to Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same)

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 1-1, 2, 3, and 2-2 of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2 of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The disposition of this case shall be revoked because it is illegal as the following reasons:

(1) No one of the plaintiffs does not hold more than 51% of the shares issued by the non-party company and did not actually exercise the right to shares more than 51% of the shares issued by the non-party company. Thus, it does not constitute an oligopolistic shareholder with the secondary

(2) 이 사건 쟁점매출액은 해당 공사의 건축주인 강◆◆, 신□□, 이■■(이하 '강◆◆ 등'이라 한다)과 김△△ 사이에서 발생한 것으로 소외회사와는 무관하고, 실제 매출이 발생하지도 않았다.

(3) In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant did not go through the procedures prescribed in the Administrative Procedures Act, such as prior notification of dispositions under the Administrative Procedures Act, granting of opportunity to present opinions, and presenting the reasons for the disposition, without specifically specifying where to what extent it falls under each item of Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act

(4) The actual manager of the non-party company is Kim △△△△, and only the Plaintiffs leased only the names upon the request of Kim △△△△, as a female student or a sales agent of Kim △△△△.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to the claim for appeal

Article 39 (1) 2 (a) through (c) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Enforcement Decree thereof.

제20조 제5호 등의 관계 규정은, 주주 1인과 그 배우자 소유 주식의 합계가 당해 법인의 발행주식 총수의 100분의 51 이상인 자들을 과점주주로 보아, 과점주주 중 당해 법인의 발행주식 총수의 100분의 51 이상의 주식에 관한 권리를 실질적으로 행사하거나 그 명칭에 불구하고 법인의 경영을 사실상 지배하는 자 및 그 배우자는 법인의 재산으로 충당되지 않은 그 법인이 납부할 국세・가산금 등의 부족액에 대하여 제2차 납세의무를 지도록 규정하고 있는바, 위 1.항의 인정사실에 의하면, 원고들은 부부로서 소외 회사 발행주식 총수 중 합계 65%를 보유하고 있어 과점주주에 해당하고, 원고 박☆☆은 위 65%의 주식에 관한 권리를 실질적으로 행사할 수 있는 지위에 있음은 물론 대표이사로서 소외회사의 경영을 사실상 지배하는 자에 해당하며, 원고 김★★은 그 배우자이므로, 원고들 모두 제2차 납세의무를 지는 과점주주에 해당한다. 따라서 이와 다른 전제에서 나옹 원고들의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

(2) Determination as to the claim for appeal

In the event that a disposal document is deemed to be authentic of its formation, the court shall deny the contents of the statement.

만한 분명하고도 수긍할 수 있는 반증이 없는 한 그 처분문서에 기재되어 있는 문언대로의 의사표시의 존재와 내용을 인정하여야 하는바, 원고들이 그 진정성립을 인정하는 을 4호증의 2(영수증)의 기재에 의하면, 소외회사가 이 사건 쟁점매출액과 관련하여 2005. 1. 21. 강◆◆ 등으로부터 인테리어 공사대금으로 4억 원을 수령한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 반하는 증인 김△△의 증언은 믿기 어려우며 달리 볼 증거가 없으므로, 원고들의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다.

(3) Determination as to the claim for appeal

According to Article 3(2)9 of the Administrative Procedures Act and Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, since the Administrative Procedures Act does not apply to matters concerning the imposition and collection of taxes under tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the prior notice of dispositions under the Administrative Procedures Act was not followed is without merit. As examined in the above (1) of the same Article, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the prior notice of dispositions under the Administrative Procedures Act was not followed is without merit. As seen in the above (1) of the same Article, not only falls under all items of Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, but also the secondary tax payment obligation of this case

(4) Determination as to the claim for appeal

The plaintiffs' assertion that Kim △△△ was consistent with or consistent with the allegation that Kim △△ was a permanent supervisor of the non-party company, and the testimony of Kim △△△△ is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is justified, so it is dismissed.