[지방세법위반][공2004.11.1.(213),1785]
[1] Where a corporation fails to pay taxes, whether its representative is liable for such failure (affirmative)
[2] Whether the so-called "Indivisibility principle of accusation and accusation" is applied to a charge under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (negative)
[3] The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the document of accusation stating the registration number of the corporation and the personal information of its representative cannot be seen as indicating the person who is a natural person as the defendant, after specifying the defendant's client as a juristic person
[1] The representative director of a company is a corporate entity that actually performs tax payment, etc., and where a company fails to pay taxes, it is the representative of the corporation who actually performed the act in arrears as the representative of the corporation. Thus, the natural person under Article 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act cannot be exempted from liability under Article 10 of the same Act as the actor.
[2] Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that a person who commits a tax offense shall file a complaint with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in principle. Since the so-called indivisible principle of complaint and accusation is not applied to a complaint filed under the same Act, the issue of whether a complaint is filed shall be individually discussed with respect to the offender and corporation who are natural persons punished by joint penal provisions.
[3] The case holding that, after specifying the defendant's client as a corporation, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's client indicate the registration number of the corporation and the personal information of its representative as the defendant's client
[1] Articles 3 and 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act / [2] Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act / [3] Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 75Do2551 delivered on April 27, 1976 (Gong1976, 9138), Supreme Court Decision 92Do2324 delivered on November 10, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 163), Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Do2870 delivered on July 15, 199 (Gong199Ha, 169), / [2] Supreme Court Decision 4293Do83 delivered on January 11, 1962 (No. 10-1, 3) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 71Do106 delivered on November 23, 197, Supreme Court Decision 72Do1610-213 delivered on September 25, 1973 (No. 1963)
Defendant
Prosecutor
Jeonju District Court Decision 2003No1096 delivered on June 17, 2004
The appeal is dismissed.
The representative director of a company is a corporation entity that actually performs tax payment, etc., and where the company fails to pay taxes, it is the representative of the corporation that actually performed the act in arrears as the representative of the corporation. Thus, the representative who is a natural person under Article 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act cannot be exempted from liability under Article 10 of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 75Do2551, Apr. 27, 1976). The term "the grounds for appeal are as pointed out."
However, Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that in principle, a complaint shall be filed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, etc. against a tax offense. Since the so-called indivisible principle of complaint and accusation is not applied to a complaint filed under the same Act, the issue of whether a complaint is filed shall be individually discussed against the offender and corporation who are natural persons punished by joint penal provisions (see Supreme Court Decisions 4293Do883, Jan. 11, 1962; 72Do1610, Sept. 25, 1973, etc.).
According to the facts duly established by the court below and the records, the defendant in this case's accusation statement of this case merely states the registration number of the above corporation and the name, resident registration number, and address of the defendant who is the representative of the above corporation. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant in this accusation is the defendant's employer (see Supreme Court Decision 4293Ma883, Jan. 11, 1962). In the same purport, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged and dismissed the prosecution of this case on the grounds that the indictment of this case was instituted without an accusation against the defendant, and the procedure is null and void in violation of the provisions of law, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)