The legitimacy of the second taxpayer’s assertion that the second taxpayer’s designation disposition is void as a matter of course by lending his name.

As long as the Plaintiff was registered as a shareholder of the non-party company, it can only be revealed that there are objective circumstances to mislead the non-party company as a shareholder, who is the actual shareholder, and whether the Plaintiff abused the name of the shareholder or borrowed the loan, etc., and it cannot be viewed as a ground for invalidation even if it is not a shareholder of the company.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On December 27, 2004, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 121,919,750 against the Plaintiff on December 27, 2004 is null and void.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are the whole purport of Gap evidence 3-1, 4, Eul evidence 2-5, Eul evidence 6 and 7-9, Eul evidence 8-8, and Eul evidence 9.

It can be recognized as a combination.

가. 주식회사 ☆☆☆☆☆(이하 '소외 회사'라 한다)는 2002. 10. 1. 설립되어 전자기기 도매업 등을 영위하다가 2004. 1. 27. 폐업한 법인으로 한★★가 대표이사로 등재되어 있다.

나. 소외 회사의 법인별 주주현황에 의하면, 소외 회사의 총 발행주식 100,000주 가운데 원고, 한★★가 각 85,000주(85%), 15,000주(15%)를 소유하고 있는 것으로 등재되어 있다.

C. The Defendant imposed the second value-added tax on the non-party company in 2004, but the non-party company failed to pay it and the property of the non-party company falls short of the appropriation amount of national taxes in arrears. As such, the Plaintiff, as an oligopolistic shareholder, deemed to fall under the second taxpayer under Article 39(1)2(a) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and notified the Plaintiff that on December 27, 2004, the Plaintiff designated the Plaintiff as the second taxpayer and paid KRW 121,919,750 according to the Plaintiff’s share ratio among the amount in arrears of the non-party company (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition”).

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's principal

The plaintiff is merely a person who lends the name of 85% of the shares of the non-party company to the non-party company. The person who owns and actually operates the non-party company is limited to ○○, and the plaintiff did not have actually invested in the non-party company, and as the shareholder did not exercise rights or authority or received dividends from the non-party company. Thus, the plaintiff is not in a position to substantially control the non-party company. Thus, the plaintiff

Therefore, the disposition of this case is null and void because it is a disposition against a person without tax liability and has a serious defect in the contents of the disposition.

B. Determination

과세처분이 당연무효라고 하기 위하여는 그 처분에 위법 사유가 있다는 것만으로는 부족하고 그 하자가 중요한 법규에 위반한 것이고 객관적으로 명백한 것이어야 하는데, 과세대상이 되는 법률관계나 사실 관계가 전혀 없는 사람에게 한 과세처분은 그 하자가 중대하고도 명백하다고 할 것이나, 과세대상이 되지 아니하는 어떤 법률관계나 사실 관계에 대하여 이를 과세대상이 되는 것으로 오인할 만한 객관적인 사정이 있는 ★★에 그것이 과세대상이 되는지의 여부가 그 사실 관계를 정확히 조사하여야 비로소 밝혀질 수 있는 ★★라면 그 하자가 중대한 ★★라도 외관상 명백하다고 할 수 없어 위와 같이 과세요건사실을 오인한 위법의 과세처분을 당연무효라고 볼 수 없다(대법원 2001. 7. 10. 선고 2000다24986 판결, 대법원 1998. 6. 26. 선고 96누12634 판결 참

§ 6).

As seen earlier in the instant case, insofar as the Plaintiff was registered as a shareholder of the non-party company, there are objective circumstances that could mislead the Plaintiff as a shareholder of the non-party company, who is the actual shareholder of the non-party company, and whether the Plaintiff was stolen or borrowed from the name of the shareholder, etc. can only be identified as a matter of fact-finding. Even if the Plaintiff was alleged as such, it was merely stolen or borrowed the name of the non-party company, and it cannot be deemed as a ground for invalidation since the defect of the instant disposition cannot be seen as apparent in appearance even if it was not a shareholder of the non-party company. Thus,

3. Conclusion

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