Examination- Other-2014-0043 (20 January 20, 2015)

In the event that only profits are paid by investing a certain amount in the process of the establishment and operation of a corporation led by another person, it is not a substantial oligopolistic shareholder.

In the event that only a profit is paid by investing a certain amount in the process of the establishment and operation of a corporation led by another person, it does not constitute a substantial oligopolistic shareholder, and thus, does not

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes [Secondary Tax Liability of Investor]

2015Guhap60563 Revocation of designation as a person liable for secondary tax payment

Section AA

◉◉세무서장

November 20, 2015

December 11, 2015

1. On May 7, 2014, the Defendant designated the Plaintiff as a non-party corporation******* the secondary taxpayer for crowdfunding and revoked the imposition of each value-added tax listed in the separate sheet 1, against the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. ◎◎지방국세청장은 ◍◍본부세관장으로부터 ㈜*****딩(이하 '이 사건 회사'라 한다)의 허위수출신고 자료를 통보받아 2013. 10. 29.부터 2014. 2. 15.까지 이 사건 회사에 대한 부가가치세 세목별조사를 실시한 결과 가공매출, 가공수출, 무자료매출 및 가공매입 사실을 확인하여 2014. 4. 1. 원고, 소외 문CC 및 이 사건 회사를 ◊◊지방검찰청에 조세범처벌법 위반으로 고발하면서, 이 사건 회사에 대하여 2011년 제1기 ~ 2013년 제2기 부가가치세 합계 0,000,000,000원을 고지하도록 피고에게 통보하였다.

B. On March 10, 2014, the Defendant imposed the value-added tax on the instant company. However, the instant company did not pay the value-added tax by March 31, 2014, which is the due date for payment, and the Defendant, on May 7, 2014, notified the Plaintiff holding 10% shares of the instant company as of the date the liability for payment of the value-added tax was established, to designate the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer and to pay the said value-added tax.

C. Since July 2, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the shares of the instant company were entirely transferred to Park Jong-soo, and revoked on July 8, 2014, the part regarding KRW 0,000,000 in the imposition of the total value-added tax of KRW 0,00,000 in the imposition of KRW 0,00,000 in the aggregate of the value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition” including the imposition of each value-added tax as listed in the separate sheet No. 1 that remains without being revoked).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 27, 2014, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on January 20, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 12-1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received 7% of the investment amount from the doorCC and lent its name to the Plaintiff, and was established by the instant company under the name of the Plaintiff and listed as a single shareholder and an intra-company director, and all business affairs of the instant company were conducted by the doorCC. There was no fact that the Plaintiff paid the stock price at the time of establishment of the instant company, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff received benefits from the instant company, and there was no fact that the stock transfer price was received from the instant company * the stock transfer price from June 2013, 201, and thus, it does not constitute an oligopolistic shareholder

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

4. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) According to the certified transcript of corporate register of the instant company, the instant company was established on December 31, 201 for the purpose of the export and import business of fishery products, flowers import and export business, etc., and the Plaintiff was appointed as an internal director before October 31, 201, and then resigned on July 2, 2013.

2) On December 31, 2010, the instant company registered the Plaintiff as the representative director, and then changed the representative director to Park* on July 9, 2013, and closed the business on December 4, 2013.

3) The Company’s capital amount is KRW 00 million, and the details of financial transactions related to the payment of capital at the time of incorporation of the Company are as follows.

Account Number (Plaintiff)

Date of transaction

Hours of transaction

Amount of withdrawal

Amount of reserve

Trading Points

Details of transfer;

*******-01*

December 28, 2010

16:52

00 million won

박▲▲→원고

December 28, 2010

2:29

00 million won

** Dong

[Plaintiff] Plaintiff

*******-02*

December 28, 2010

2:29

00 million won

** Dong

[Plaintiff] Plaintiff

December 29, 2010

13:05

00 million won

** Dong

원고→유◊◊

4) According to the National Tax Integration System’s “The Current Status of Stockholders by Stock Issuing Corporation” and the Securities Transaction Tax Return Protocol, the Plaintiff owned 10,000 shares of the instant company from 2010 to 2012. However, on July 2, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer of shares with KRW 10,000 shares to the Plaintiff ** on July 2, 2013, and the said contract for the transfer of shares was filed with the head of the tax office on the 10th of the same month.

[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1, 3, 4, 10호증, 갑 제12호증의 1 내지 5, 을 제1 내지 4호증의 각 기재, 이 법원의 ◒◒은행, ▢▢은행에 대한 각 금융거래정보제출명령 회신결과, 변론 전체의 취지

B. Determination

1) Whether a person constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39 subparag. 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013) shall be determined by whether the person is a member of a group of stocks owned by the majority. Specifically, even if there is no fact involved in the management of the company, it cannot be determined that the person is not an oligopolistic shareholder. The fact of ownership of stocks should be proven by the tax authority through the data, such as the list of stockholders, specifications of stock movement, or the register of corporate register, etc. However, even if the person appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, if there are circumstances, such as where the person is stolen the name of the shareholder or was registered in a name other than the name of the de facto owner, the actual shareholder cannot be deemed to be a shareholder, but this should be proved by the nominal owner who is not the shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du16

2) Based on the above legal principles, the facts that the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the instant company from the first to the first period, 2011, as the representative director of the instant company, as holding 100% of the issued shares are as seen earlier. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff, under the lead of the literatureCC, invested a certain amount in the process of the establishment and operation of the instant company, and received profits therefrom, based on the Plaintiff’s investment in a certain amount in the process of the establishment and operation of the instant company, and the fact that the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director and the shareholder is in a position of exercising its rights by owning more than 50% of the total issued shares of the instant company. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was in a position of practically exercising its rights by owning more than 50% of the total outstanding shares of the instant company.

가) 이 사건 회사 설립시 원고는 박▲▲으로부터 0,000만 원을 송금받아 이를 가지고 주금납입증명을 받은 후 다음 날 같은 금액을 유◊◊에게 송금하였는데, 박▲▲과 유◊◊은 문CC의 직원이고, 위와 같은 자본금 납입 및 송금 과정은 모두 문CC의 지시에 따라 이루어진 것으로 보인다. 피고는 이와 관련하여, 원고가 이 사건 회사의 설립 전부터 문CC과 고액의 자금거래를 계속적으로 해왔고, 이 사건 회사, 문CC, 박▲▲ 등과 다양한 금액을 하루에도 몇 번씩 입출금한 점에 비추어 볼 때 원고가 이 사건 회사의 자본금을 납입한 것으로 보아야 한다고 주장한다. 갑 제4호증의 기재에 의하면, 원고가 2010. 9. 1. 000만 원, 2010. 11. 4. 0,000만 원, 2010. 11. 12. 문CC에게 000만 원을 송금하였고, 2010. 11. 17. 문CC가 원고에게 000만 원을 송금하는 등의 금전거래가 있었던 사실은 인정되나, 증인 문CC은 이 법정에서 원고로부터 돈을 빌려서 며칠 후에 갚는 등의 금전거래를 한 사실은 있으나, 이 사건 회사 설립 당시에는 채무관계가 없었다고 진술한 점, 이외에 피고가 주장하는 원고와 이 사건 회사, 문CC 및 박▲▲ 등과 사이의 금전거래는 모두 이 사건 회사의 설립 이후에 있었던 것으로 보이는 점, 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 회사의 설립 당시 자본금 상당액이 제3자로부터 원고의 계좌로 들어왔다가 다음 날 바로 출금되었음이 명백한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 피고가 주장하는 사정만으로는 이 사건 회사의 자본금이 원고의 자금으로 납입되었음을 인정하기 어렵다.

B) Park* who is expected to acquire all the shares of the instant company from the Plaintiff by means of a stock transfer agreement dated July 2, 2013, was present in this court as a witness, and himself was present in this court in this court, and he did not directly affix his seal to the instant contract, or pay the Plaintiff the share transfer price by deceiving the Plaintiff at the request of the literatureCC, and he lent his name upon the request of the literatureCC that he would compensate for the losses exceeding KRW 00 million by causing friendly and misleading fraud of the literatureCC, and that he would actually operate the instant company even after she was registered as the representative director of the instant company.

C) On February 5, 2014, literatureCC did not receive an investment from the Plaintiff in the course of the investigation by the tax authorities, and it stated that it only conducted the business of purchase, export, and sale of non-data upon the Plaintiff’s request, and that it is not recognized as the actual operator of the instant company. However, it was prohibited to attend the court as a witness of the instant company after lending the Plaintiff’s name (Evidence 7), and paid profits to the Plaintiff while operating the instant company with investments from the Plaintiff, and it was fully implementing the establishment and operation of the instant company as stated in the written confirmation (Evidence 6). The Plaintiff did not appear to have received benefits from the instant company to the account designated by the Plaintiff, and thus, did not appear to have received actual benefits, as it transferred the instant company’s name to the account to which the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that it would have been 00% of its own shares under the name of the Plaintiff’s 200-day stock transfer contract (Evidence No. 1000, supra).

라) 원고 명의의 ▣▣은행 예금계좌의 거래내역(갑 제4호증) 및 이 사건 회사 명의의 계좌거래내역(을 제9호증의 1 내지 3)에 의하면, 이 사건 회사의 설립시부터 2013. 6.경까지 이 사건 회사 또는 그 관련자들로부터 원고의 위 예금계좌로 입금 및 출금이 매우 빈번하게 이루어진 것으로 보이나, 입금 또는 출금된 금액은 대부분 당일 또는 그 다음 날 동일한 금액이 반대로 출금 또는 입금된 것으로 되어 있어 이를 통해 원고가 실제 수익을 얻었다기보다는 위 예금계좌가 대표이사 명의의 계좌로서 이 사건 회사 관련 수입 및 지출금액이 거쳐가는 통로로 이용된 것으로 보이고, 증인 문CC 역시 이 법정에서 자신의 지시에 따라 위와 같은 자금의 입금 및 출금이 이루어진 것이라고 진술하였다. 이외에 원고는 이 사건 회사와 관련하여 부정기적으로 수백만 원씩을 지급받은 것으로 보이나, 그 지급시기 및 금액이 일정하지 않은 점에 비추어 이를 급여로 지급받았다고 보기는 어렵고, 부정기적으로 자신의 투자금에 대한 수익을 지급받은 것으로 보인다.

E) The same district prosecutor’s office similar to the same case, which investigated the plaintiff on the grounds of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the violation of the Customs Duties Act, was disposition suspending prosecution against the plaintiff on the grounds that "the plaintiff was aware that the plaintiff would make an investment from the literatureCC by exporting goods and filing an export declaration, and distribute profits in return for the refund of value-added tax, making an investment in the above case, and did not recover part of the invested money, and the degree of the crime was minor."

바) 원고가 이 사건 회사와 관련하여 ◍◍세관으로부터 조사를 받으면서, "제가 문CC에게 먼저 저의 명의로 법인을 차려 해 볼 수 있도록 좀 도와달라고 하였으며, 저도 물품매입 자금 명목으로 합쳐서 도합 1억 원 정도의 돈도 투자하고 이 사건 회사도 설립한 것이다"라고 진술한 사실은 인정되나, 같은 신문조서에서 이 사건 회사를 원고가 직접 운영하였냐는 질문에 대해서는 이 사건 회사는 명의만 자신의 이름으로 되어 있었고, 실제 운영은 문CC이 하였다고 답변하였으며, 자신은 이 사건 회사가 진행한 식품류 수출 업무에 관하여 아는 것이 없고, 문CC이 이 사건 회사를 주도적으로 운영하면서 원고에게 수익을 지급하였다는 취지로 진술하였으므로, 위 ◍◍세관에서의 진술 내용이 원고의 이 사건 주장과 명백히 배치된다고 보기는 어렵다. 원고가 2013. 10. 31. 및 2014. 2. 12.자로 작성하여 과세관청에 제출한 확인서(을 제8호증) 역시 문CC과 협의해서 이 사건 회사를 설립한 후 자신은 업무에 관여하지 않은 채 투자에 대한 수익만을 받았고, 회사 설립시 주금 납입은 문CC이 입금해 준 0,000만 원으로 회사를 설립하고 다시 문CC과 관계된 사람에게 송금하였으며, 자신은 그 이후 에 0억 0,000만 원을 투자하였다는 내용으로 되어 있다.

3) Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39 subparag. 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be deemed to bear the secondary tax liability for the delinquent tax amount of the instant company, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion pointing this out is with merit.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.