Early High Court 201J 2741 ( November 30, 2011)

As an oligopolistic stockholder, this disposition is legitimate for the second taxpayer.

If a substantial genuine shareholder is a director or representative director of the corporation, it shall be said that there is no influence in determining whether the shareholder is an oligopolistic shareholder or not.

2012Guhap2130 Revocation of designation as a person liable for secondary tax payment

CivilAA

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

April 10, 2013

May 8, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant, on May 25, 201, designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of BBN on May 25, 201, revoked the imposition disposition for the second half-year value-added tax of 2008, the other income tax of 000 won in July 2008, the corporate tax of 2008, and the value-added tax of 00 won in January 2009, the final value-added tax of 00 in January 2009, the earned income tax of 00 in January 2009, the calculated value-added tax of 00 won in February 2009, the earned income tax of 00 in July 2009, and of 2009, the tax amount of 00 won in October 209, the amount of value-added tax of 200 in October 209, and the estimated amount of 000 won in October 209, and 2009.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 8, 2006 to August 6, 2008, the Plaintiff was registered as the director (the representative director from January 29, 2007 to September 19, 2007) of BBN Co., Ltd. (the trade name before the change: BB engineering, and hereinafter referred to as the “non-party company”) and held 60% (27,600,000 shares and hereinafter referred to as the “instant shares”) of the total number of issued stocks of the non-party company (46 million shares) since the incorporation of the non-party company. The Defendant determined that the non-party company’s obligation to pay the non-party company’s assets was impossible due to the non-party company’s default of 00 won including value-added tax on May 25, 201, and decided that the non-party company’s oligopolistic shareholder falls under Article 209(1)60% of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9016, Feb. 6, 2016, 2019).

C. On June 24, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for an island board with the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 29, 201, but was dismissed on November 30, 201.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 and 4, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On September 14, 2007, the plaintiff resigned from the representative director of the non-party company and agreed to transfer the shares of this case to the person designated by KimCC on December 2, 2007, and thereafter, KimCC only operated the company as the representative director of the non-party company, and the plaintiff does not actually exercise the right to the above shares or take part in the management of the non-party company. Nevertheless, the disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff actually operated the non-party company is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 39(1)2 (a) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "any person who actually exercises rights to shares exceeding 50/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of the relevant corporation among oligopolistic shareholders shall be subject to secondary tax liability, and the proviso of the same Article provides that "the amount calculated by dividing the delinquent tax amount of the relevant corporation by the total number of issued and outstanding shares other than non-voting shares of the relevant corporation and multiplying the scope of liability by the number of outstanding shares of the relevant oligopolistic shareholder who actually exercises rights." The exercise of rights to shares exceeding 50/100 of the above item (a) does not require that the actual exercise of shareholders' rights must be required, and it shall be deemed that the person who actually exercises shareholders' rights to the shares held as of the date on which the corporate tax liability is established is satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du19105, Jan. 10, 2008; 201Du5354979, Jul. 8, 2009).

2) Based on the above legal principles, the above facts were found to be public health, Gap's 1, 2, and 7, and Eul evidence No. 8's 1, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of each entry and pleading, i.e., (i) the plaintiff transferred the shares of this case to the person designated by KimCC at the end of 207, and the plaintiff prepared a statement of agreement that the plaintiff would cooperate with the plaintiff at the time of transfer and acquisition, but the transfer of shares of this case was entered into in accordance with the above agreement, or the plaintiff did not receive the price for the transfer of the shares of this case. (ii) The plaintiff did not have any objection to the above 10th of March 15, 2008, and the non-party 1 did not have any objection to the above 20th of the company's 3rd of the company's 3rd of the company's 10th of the company's 3rd of the company's 10th of the company's 3rd of the company's 20th of the company.

3. Conclusion

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