Incheon District Court 2017Guhap52706 ( April 5, 2018)

The designation of secondary tax liability is invalid because it is merely lending the name.

Even though the company is not the actual shareholder of the company of this case since it borrowed the shareholder's name, such circumstance can only be found to have been clearly examined, and it is difficult to view that the payment notice disposition of this case was an obvious appearance. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the payment notice disposition of this case is null and void

Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act

2018Nu44045 Demanding confirmation of invalidity of the designation of the person liable for secondary tax payment

박@@ 외 2

00. Head of tax office

Incheon District Court Decision 2017Guhap52706 Decided April 5, 2018

July 25, 2018

September 19, 2018

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

제1심 판결을 취소한다. 피고가 2011. 6. 7. 원고들을 주식회사 @@@@엔지니어링의

The phrase "amount of tax after reduction or correction" in the attached list for the plaintiffs designated as the second taxpayer.

납부고지처분은 무효임을 확인한다. 피고가 2012. 4. 1. 원고 박@@에게 한 2006년 귀속 종합소득세 31,179,618원 중 27,189,100원의 부과처분은 무효임을 확인한다.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part concerning the judgment of the court of first instance) except for the modification of the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following 2. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2. Parts to be corrected;

○ 5 The following shall be added as follows:

Furthermore, in an administrative litigation that claims the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeks the invalidity confirmation thereof, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the reason why the administrative disposition is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010).

○ 6. The following shall be added to 6.7 pages "......"

In addition, it is presumed that the shareholder registry is a shareholder of the company and is registered as a shareholder of the company.

In order to take the rights, there is a burden of proof on the part of denying the shareholder's rights (Supreme Court on March 11, 2010).

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, barring special circumstances, a person who is legally listed in the register of shareholders is entitled to exercise voting rights, such as voting rights, in relation to the company, in relation to the company. A company cannot deny the exercise of a shareholder’s right by a shareholder on the register of shareholders, even though it was unaware of the existence of a person who actually acquired or intended to acquire shares, other than a shareholder on the register of shareholders, or in relation to another person who actually acquired or intended to acquire shares, and cannot deny the exercise of a shareholder’s right by a person who did not complete the registration on the register of shareholders (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da248342, Mar. 23, 201

○ 6쪽 아래에서 7행의 "참조하였다고 하더라도"를 "참조하였고, 그 수사자료에 차@@이 자신이 실질주주라는 취지로 진술한 부분이 포함되어 있었다 하더라도"로 고친다.

In addition, it is difficult to say that the defendant, at the time of the instant notice of payment, clearly known the fact that the plaintiffs were not shareholders of the company at the time of the instant notice of payment, "It is difficult to see," and the evidence submitted by the parties is insufficient.

○ 8쪽 1행 "보기 어려우므로,"를 "보기 어려울 뿐만 아니라, 당사자들이 제출한 증거들만으로는 피고가 이 사건 소득세 부과처분 당시 원고 박@@이 이 사건 회사를 실질적으로 운영한 사실이 없다는 것을 명백하게 알았다고 보기도 어려우므로,"로 고친다.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reasonable grounds. The judgment of the first instance court shall be dismissed.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in entirety due to the lack of grounds.