Revocation of the designation of the secondary taxpayer;

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the secondary tax obligor is not the secondary tax obligor because all shares are transferred at the time of the establishment of the tax liability.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The defendant designated the plaintiff on April 27, 2009 as the secondary taxpayer for △△ Logistics and revoked all the disposition of the above company's corporate tax of 2,857,170 won and the value-added tax of 34,279,830 won for the second period of 2007 against the plaintiff ("the statement in the complaint of May 17, 2009" is a clerical error in the statement of the complaint of April 27, 2009).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. △△△ Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “△△”) was established on December 27, 2005 and operated a third party distribution business and a home distribution business. At the time of incorporation, the Plaintiff owned 100% of the shares of the non-party company.

B. When the non-party company's corporate tax 2,857,170 won and value-added tax 34,279,830 won for the second term of 2007 (hereinafter "each tax of this case") were delinquent, the defendant determined that the non-party company's property cannot perform its duty of payment as the property of the non-party company. On April 27, 2009, the defendant notified the non-party company to designate the plaintiff who is an oligopolistic shareholder on the register of shareholders as the second taxpayer and pay the above delinquent amount (hereinafter "each disposition of this case").

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 3

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On December 21, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred the stocks and managerial rights of the non-party company to Gangwon-A in total at KRW 250 million, and the Plaintiff was not an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company at the time of December 31, 2017, which is the date when the liability to pay each of the taxes of this case was established, and thus, each of the dispositions of this case based on such premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On December 21, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the transfer of the right of management with the stocks and the shares of the non-party company to Gangwon, and its main contents are as follows.

Article 1 Subject Matter of Transfer

(i)the total number of shares and corporate body owned by the Plaintiff;

ii)the business rights and assets owned by the plaintiff;

(iii)the permit for the business owned by the Plaintiff and the licence matters (the licence);

Article 2 Transfer Price

The transfer price shall be 250 million won.

Article 3. Method of Payment

The Gangwon-A shall pay 250 million won to the Plaintiff at the time of concluding the contract. (2) On December 21, 2007, the Plaintiff received KRW 250 million from the Gangwon-A through the account.

(3) According to the certified transcript of corporate register of the non-party company, on December 21, 2007, the plaintiff resigns from the director and the representative director of the non-party company, and the Gangwon taken office as the representative director on the same day.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence, Gap's evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) Whether it constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be determined by whether it 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 it is not an oligopolistic shareholder. The fact of ownership of stocks is proven by the tax authority through the data such as the register of shareholders, the statement of stock transfer 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 that the actual shareholder was stolen or registered in a name other than the name of the actual owner, the nominal shareholder cannot be deemed to be a company, but this should be proved by the nominal shareholder who asserts that he is not a shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615, Jul. 9,

(2) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on December 21, 2007 for the transfer of all shares of the non-party company to the Gangnam company to the non-party company, and received the payment in full. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s shareholder registry is registered as holding 10% of the shares of the non-party company until the date of incorporation, i.e., the Plaintiff’s transfer of shares to the non-party company to the non-party company. ② According to the corporate registry, the Gangwon company was registered as the representative director of the non-party company only for a relatively short period of time from December 21, 2007 to April 11, 2008, and the Plaintiff did not transfer the shares of the non-party company to the non-party company to the non-party company to the non-party company to the non-party company to the non-party company to the non-party company to the non-party company to the non-party company to the non-party company to the non-party company after resignation from its representative director.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that each disposition of this case is illegal is dismissed as it is without merit.