beta
(영문) 대법원 1986. 11. 11. 선고 85누893 판결

[부가가치세부과처분취소][공1987.1.1.(791),31]

Main Issues

Whether a person who takes over only a construction business license falls under a business transferee liable for secondary tax payment

Summary of Judgment

The secondary tax liability under Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act does not include persons who have acquired part of facilities or rights constituting their business place individually, and in case where only a construction business license which legally is qualified to engage in a construction business is acquired, such transfer does not constitute a transfer of business under the same Act, and the transferee does not constitute the secondary taxpayer.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 22 of Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu291 delivered on September 28, 1982, 82Nu292 delivered on March 8, 1983, 84Nu513 delivered on October 22, 1985

Plaintiff-Appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Park Young-chul, Inc., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Defendant-Appellant

The director of the tax office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu525 decided August 22, 1985

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act does not include persons who take over some facilities or rights constituting their business place individually. If only a construction business license which is legally authorized to engage in a construction business is taken over, the transferee does not fall under the transfer or takeover of the business prescribed in the same Act, and the transferee does not fall under the secondary taxpayer. It is justified in the judgment below that the decision of the court below is unlawful and it is just in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the whole.

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)