National Tax Service Review and other 2008-0026 (No. 11, 2010)

Since it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the secondary taxpayer was not a substantial shareholder, the disposition of notice for payment by designating the secondary taxpayer is legitimate.

Since it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the representative director was registered as the representative director after forging a written acceptance of appointment by using the seal imprint, etc. without permission, or that it was not a substantial shareholder, the disposition for which the second taxpayer was designated and notified is legitimate.

2010Revocation of disposition, such as value-added tax, 468

The AA

O Head of tax office

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

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

The imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax against the plaintiff on April 25, 2008 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"가. 원고는 2003. 11. 18.부터 2004. 4. 18.까지 BB시 CC구 DD동 532-1에 사업장을 둔 주식회사 XXXXX(이하소외 회사'라 한다)의 대표이사로 법인등기부에 기재되어 있었고, 2003. 5. 27.부터 2004. 4. 12.까지 소외 회사 주식의 60%를 소유한 주주였다.", "나. 피고는 소외 회사의 2003년 제2기분 부가가치세 28,754,540원과 2003사업연도 법인세 53,664,566원 및 위 각 부가가치세 및 법인세에 대한 가산금, 중가산금의 합계 액 중 60%(법인세 및 이에 대한 가산금, 중가산금 합계 33,551,060원, 부가가치세 및 이에 대한 가산금, 중가산금 합계 17,977,320원)에 대하여 원고를 국세기본법 제39조에 의한 제2차 납세의무자로 지정하고 2008. 4. 25. 납부통지(이하이 사건 각 처분'이라 한다)하였다.",다. 원고는 이 사건 각 처분에 불복하여 2008. 5. 14. 국세청장에게 심사청구를 제기 하였으나, 2010. 1. 11. 위 심사청구는 기각되었다.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since SongF or KG used the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, etc. without permission to forge the Plaintiff’s letter of appointment as the representative director of the non-party company, the Plaintiff registered the Plaintiff as the representative director of the non-party company. Since the Plaintiff did not actually own the shares of the non-party company, each disposition of this case which designated the Plaintiff as the second taxpayer

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

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 real shareholder, the nominal shareholder cannot be deemed to be a shareholder, but the nominal shareholder who asserts that he is not a shareholder should be proved by the nominal shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615, Jul.

(2) On the premise of such a legal doctrine, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that, after forging the Plaintiff’s letter of appointment of the representative director with respect to the non-party company by using the Plaintiff’s seal imprint design, etc. without permission, the SongF or the headGG entered the Plaintiff as the representative director of the non-party company, or that the Plaintiff was not the actual shareholder of the non-party company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit (In light of each of the statements in subparagraphs 6-8, 9, and 10, according to the evidence No. 6-8, 9, and 10, the Plaintiff filed

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.