Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap14941 ( October 11, 2012)

National Tax Service Review and other 2011-0059 ( October 13, 2012)

Since the transfer of shares is recognized, the designation of the secondary tax liability is illegal.

Since it can be recognized that the plaintiffs transferred the shares of this case, the disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiffs are the oligopolistic shareholders of the non-party company is unlawful.

2012Nu33579 Revocation, etc. of revocation of designation as a person liable for secondary tax payment.

President AAA et al.

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap14941 decided October 11, 2012

May 10, 2013

June 21, 2013

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On August 24, 2011, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiffs as secondary taxpayers of BB; (b) revoked the imposition of value-added tax of 000 won for the second term portion in 2007, value-added tax of 000 won for the second term portion in 2009, and the imposition of value-added tax of 000 won for the second term portion in 2007 and 0000 won for the second term portion in 2009 against Plaintiff 200.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts on the 4th to 7th, the 4th to 10th, the 4th to 7th, the 4th to 10th,

2. Parts to be dried;

2) In light of the following facts recognized by each of the descriptions in the Domins, Gap's 1 through 5, and 8 through 14 (including household numbers), each of the testimony in the first instance trial, the witness O in the trial, the witness O in the trial, and the KimOOO, and the facts that the plaintiffs transferred the instant shares to Lee 00 on April 2005, the disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiffs are the oligopolistic shareholders of the non-party company is unlawful.

A) The Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression issued on May 17, 2005, which is attached to the said contract, stated that the Plaintiff heada has transferred shares to 00 in the share transfer/acquisition agreement (A’s certificate of personal seal impression).

B) The minutes of the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders (Evidence A No. 4) and the list of shareholders (Evidence A 5) of November 7, 2007 are not indicated as shareholders, unlike those indicated in the detailed statement of changes in stocks, etc.

C) At the time of the incorporation of the non-party company, the children of the largest director, who is the actual operator of the OO construction, was appointed as the executive of the plaintiff Ba, the YO, and the creditor KimO, but on May 6, 2005, following the preparation of the above stock transfer and acquisition contract, the existing executive was resigned and the ties and ties of this00 were appointed as the director or the auditor. The non-party company was appointed as the joint representative of the O when changing the trade name on January 7, 2007 to BB, and the non-party company was appointed as the executive of the non-party company on March 28, 2008.

D) After the establishment of a share transfer and acquisition contract, EO received funds from a newO or Ma-friendly KimO, a branch, using the account of the non-party company, and disbursed funds as the operating expenses of the non-party company at the corner of the employee’s benefit. On the other hand, the funds of the Plaintiffs or MaO have not been deposited into the account of the non-party company for the same period.

E) The office of the non-party company was transferred to 00 Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 00 floors, where the office of the non-party company had the office of the OO communication company operated by the new 00 branch office of this 00 on May 12, 2005.

F) After the establishment of a stock transfer and acquisition contract, the non-party company carried out the apartment company's business in Chuncheon-si, and the reconstruction site agency business in Seoul OO, which had been the largestO located in Ansan-si, and there is no data that the service cost collected from the place of business has been paid to the plaintiffs or the leastO for the same period.

G) On April 2005, when a stock transfer and acquisition contract was completed, the tugboat construction, which was operated by the MaO, was treated as a financial pressure on the part of April 2005, and was closed on June 30, 2005. The O was in charge of the business of implementing the solar apartment-type factory inside the MaOO, and transferred the benefits to the account of the MaulO of the Plaintiff MaO from February 2010 to August 2010.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the plaintiffs' appeal is accepted, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the disposition of this case is revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition.