The meaning of oligopolistic stockholders liable for secondary tax liability

In order to have a shareholder of a corporation bear the secondary tax liability pursuant to subparagraph 2 of Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it requires that the oligopolistic shareholder be in a position to substantially control the operation of the corporation, and on the sole basis of the fact that the register of shareholders of the corporation is recorded as a shareholder in the register of shareholders, the said oligopolistic shareholder cannot be immediately

Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant

Director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu50 delivered on September 24, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

Under Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in order to impose secondary tax liability on the shareholders of a corporation under Article 39 (2) of the same Act, it is required that the non-party is an oligopolistic shareholder who is in a position to substantially control the operation of the corporation, and merely because the reasons registered as shareholders in the register of shareholders of the corporation are in the form of a company, it cannot be charged with tax liability as an oligopolistic shareholder immediately (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu55, May 28, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu63, Jun. 11, 1985). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party's disposition against the non-party 1 was unlawful on the premise that the non-party 1 was recorded in the register of the company as a director and the non-party 2 did not constitute an oligopolistic shareholder's act in violation of the rules of evidence or in violation of the rules of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)