Review Division 2009-0164 (Law No. 11, 2010)

Whether it falls under an oligopolistic stockholder

Although a part of the shares is transferred, it is alleged that it is not an oligopolistic shareholder, but later, the submission of a securities transaction tax return at the latest shall be made in collusion with the private person, and it shall not be able to be exceeded the oligopolistic shareholder because of

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

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s revocation of each taxation disposition stated in the separate sheet against the Plaintiff on August 27, 2009 (the Plaintiff sought revocation of the decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request on January 18, 2010 by the National Tax Service, but the Defendant’s correction was made in the National Tax Service’s correction on May 4, 2010, and accordingly, the Defendant’s correction was made on May 10, 201, and the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, etc. are each taxation disposition listed in the separate sheet, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation is deemed to be an individual taxation disposition as above.)

1. Facts of the disposition;

A. Dok Pool Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the corporation of this case") was established on August 1, 2005 and closed on December 31, 2008, and the annual status of the ownership of the corporation of this case under the integrated national tax computer network based on the statement of changes in stocks, etc. submitted by the corporation of this case is as listed in the following chart. According to the certified copy of the register of the corporation of this case, the plaintiff is registered as the representative director of the corporation of this case from November 22, 2005 to December. 31, 2008.

B. In the event that the Defendant was delinquent in the amount of KRW 13,024,00 for the first period of 2006, which was corrected and notified to the instant corporation, the Plaintiff constitutes oligopolistic shareholders (50% of the Plaintiff’s share and 10% of the Plaintiff’s share) as of the date on which the liability to pay delinquent national taxes was established, and on August 27, 2009, the Plaintiff designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of the instant corporation and notified the Plaintiff to pay 50% of the Plaintiff’s share as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “each taxation”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with each of the instant taxation dispositions, filed an objection against the Defendant on September 17, 2009, but was dismissed on October 9, 2009, and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 28, 2009, but was dismissed on January 11, 2010.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2-1 to 7, Eul evidence 3-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each taxation of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On or around May 1, 2005, the Plaintiff participated in the establishment of the instant legal entity and received 20% shares of the instant legal entity, and thereafter, the Plaintiff acquired 30% shares of the instant legal entity in the name of the Plaintiff, thereby acquiring 50% of the shares of the instant legal entity in the name of the Plaintiff. However, around November 30, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred 10% of shares of the instant legal entity to YellowB and KimCC, and around May 1, 2007, transferred 10% of shares of the instant legal entity to ChoD. Since the Plaintiff’s shares were merely 20% shares ownership ratio of the instant legal entity, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder of the instant legal entity is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination of whether a person is an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be based on whether a group of stocks owned by a majority is a member of a group of stocks owned by a majority, and in detail, even if there is no fact involved in the management of the company, it shall not be determined that the person is not an oligopolistic shareholder. The fact of ownership of stocks shall be proven by the tax authority through the data, such as the register of stockholders, the statement of stock transfer status, or the register of corporate register, etc. However, even if it appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, if there are circumstances, such as where the name of the shareholder was stolen or registered in a name other than the name of the de facto owner, it shall not be deemed as a shareholder only in the name thereof, but it shall be proved by the nominal shareholder who asserts that he is not a

(2) According to the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s return to the instant case and the facts of the above disposition are difficult to prove the fact that it was an oligopolistic shareholder of the instant corporation as of the date on which the tax liability of each of the instant taxation was established. On the contrary, around November 30, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred 10% of the shares of the instant corporation to YellowB and KimCC, and around May 1, 2007, the Plaintiff should prove that 10% of the shares of the instant corporation were transferred to ChoD. However, the Plaintiff’s statement of No. 3 through 10, 13, 14, and 27 should be stated on the 20th anniversary of the date of issuance of shares, and there is no evidence to prove that the date of transfer of shares stated on No. 20th of the instant tax base return between the Plaintiff and YellowB and KimCC (No. 3 and 5th of the instant tax base return on No. 2060, Jun. 1, 2005).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims of the plaintiff in this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.