법인인수 후 가공자료로 과세처분되자 전대표자 행위에 대해 국가가 배상해야 된다는 주장[국승]
The assertion that the State should compensate for the actions of the former representative after the acquisition of the corporation.
The taxpayer of the taxation disposition is the company in this case, and the plaintiff is only the shareholder, so there is no evidence to prove that the tax disposition in this case caused direct damage to the plaintiff or suffered damage due to the decline in stock value equivalent to the tax amount.
Article 4 of the Special Arbitration Act on the Procedure of Final Appeal
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the assertion on the grounds of appeal by the appellant constitutes Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per Disposition
Daejeon High Court Decision 2007Na2815 (Law No. 25, 2007)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
And the purport of the complaint
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 124,340,160 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.
1. Basic facts
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 6.
A. On January 29, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for business transfer/acquisition (hereinafter referred to as "the contract of this case") with the representative director, who actually operated ○○ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "○○ Development") as one company, and entered into a contract for business transfer/acquisition that comprehensively takes over all rights, obligations, and management rights related to ○○ Development's business from 2.15 million won (hereinafter referred to as "the contract of this case"). On February 4, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the shares of ○○ Development by way of full payment of acquisition price under the contract of this case and transfer of the shares of ○○ Development from ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the company of this case"), and transferred the trade name of ○○ Development to ○○ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred
B. In concluding the instant contract, it stated that, in preparation for the case where a debt incurred in the operation of ○○ Development prior to the conclusion of the instant contract, gold without payment, tax evasion, etc. is imposed on the instant company, the time when the Plaintiff takes over the instant business by the proviso of Article 1 of the instant contract, and the time when the Plaintiff (Plaintiff) takes over the business shall be January 29, 2003, and even all the administrative fines and penalties incurred in the operation of the instant business, etc. arising from Gap (No. 3) after the transfer, shall be liable to Gap.
C. On the other hand, on February 23, 2004, the ○○ Tax Office received false purchase tax invoices of KRW 300,000,000 from the company of this case from the company of this case during the second taxable period of 2001, from the company of this case, without any real transaction, during the second taxable period of 2001, and notified the company of the change in the income amount on February 24, 2004, but the company of this case did not withhold the income tax for Class A, but did not pay the income tax for Class A.
7.1. Class A earned income tax amounting to KRW 120,718,610 by July 31, 2004 (hereinafter “instant tax disposition”). On August 2, 2004, the instant company paid the total of KRW 120,718,610 as earned income tax and additional 3,621,550 as 124,340,160.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. On April 17, 2003, the Plaintiff: (a) at the time of the instant tax investigation with respect to the instant company, the head of the ○○ Tax Office received false processed data without any real transaction at the time of operating the ○○ Development; and (b) was led to the confession of tax evasion; (c) on February 23, 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) at the time of the tax investigation with respect to the instant company, the head of the ○○ Tax Office was aware of the fact that the ○○○ received false tax invoices from the ○○, etc. from the ○○○, etc.; and (d) was aware of the fact that the ○○○ received false tax invoices amounting to KRW 300 million from the ○○, etc., in an unlawful way; and (b) did not timely file a criminal charge and obtain additional collection of taxes on the ○○’s personal property; (b) thereby, (c) did not impose the instant tax disposition on the Plaintiff, thereby claiming that the Defendant was liable to compensate for damages arising from the price decline.
B. However, on April 17, 2003 or February 23, 2004, the statement of evidence No. 11 alone is insufficient to recognize the facts that the head of ○○ Tax Office led to the confession of illegally tax evasion of KRW 00 million from the inside ○○ at the time of the tax investigation, and that he was well aware of the illegal act of ○○○○○○○○○○ by being written up with a letter that he would fully assume the responsibility for the illegal act of ○○○○○ at the time of the tax investigation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, even if it is true, ○○○ Tax Office did not have a duty to take measures to seize taxes on the personal property of ○○○○○○ upon filing a criminal complaint with the Plaintiff at the time of ○○○○ and the Plaintiff is a shareholder, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s taxpayer of the tax disposition is only the Plaintiff, and therefore, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff suffered direct loss or loss due to a decrease in stock value equivalent to the above tax amount.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.