2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. 제1항 기재 각 처분은 이 사건의 항소심 판결 선고 이후 15일이 되는 날까지 그 집행을 정지한다.청 구 취 지��주위적 청구취지 : 주문 제1항과 같다.

��예비적 청구취지 : 피고가 2014. *. **. 원고에 대하여 한 2007 사업연도 법인세 **,***,847,880원 및 가산금(중가산금 포함) **,203,112,460원의 각 부과처분을 모두 취소한다.

A. On February 4, 2008, the Plaintiff is a corporation that was divided and newly incorporated from Non-Party Company* * Hexex (Co., Ltd. before the modification** * * * HexTex).

B.** On May 3, 2007, as a listed corporation that has produced and sold agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, synthetic resin, gold iron, etc. * Is a listed corporation that has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling semiconductors and related machinery (hereinafter referred to as the “instant merger”) ** Bosch Rexroth (hereinafter referred to as the “instant merger”). Under Article 84-7 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2005 of May 16, 2007) and Article 36-12 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 875 of March 3, 2008) (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy of February 15, 2007) * As of the current base date of merger, merger contract and conclusion date of merger contract for the purpose of the merger * as of the date of merger * Teex and the share price of the clinic *

(c) The book value of 04,60,480,60,60,60,6722, 07, 070, 170, 207, 200, 106, 206, 200, 107, 106, 106, 106, 100, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 107, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 206, 106, 206, 106, 106, *630, 106, *

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7 through 9, 17, 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

The instant disposition is automatically null and void after March 31, 2013, which was the exclusion period for imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2007 of HTTT ** it was made after the lapse of March 31, 2013.

2) As long as the Defendant imposed corporate tax for the business year 2007 of this case on Deteex within the exclusion period of imposition, the instant disposition, which was merely an exercise of the right to collect taxes that notify the Plaintiff of the occurrence of the obligation as a joint and several tax obligor, was made within the extinctive prescription period stipulated in Article 27 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) First, on March 12, 2013, 2013, the exclusion period of imposition, the Defendant imposed corporate tax on Deteex * on the business year 2007 of the instant case, which is within the exclusion period of imposition, and thus, it can be deemed that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff as a joint obligor of the disposition of imposition. The mutual solidarity relationship between the joint obligor and several liability relationship

Therefore, even if a joint and several taxpayers are jointly and severally liable for tax payment, specific tax liability is required to be individually determined, and thus, a notification of imposition, which is an effective requirement for the determination of tax liability, is given to each of the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment. Therefore, even if a tax payment notice was given to one of the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment, it cannot be said that the other persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment have been notified of the imposition of tax (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da31697, Sept. 4, 1998). Furthermore, if a corporation is divided, the divided corporation and the corporation incorporated through the division, and the corporation established through the division, are merely separate corporations, and are also subject to the discretion of the tax authorities, and thus, if the delivery of a tax payment notice to one of the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment reaches all the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment, it cannot be deemed that the aforementioned notice has an effective effect as to the remaining persons subject to tax payment notice or the remaining opportunity for tax payment by the court, which is excessively limited or inconsistent with the purport of the National Tax Service.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff’s delinquent tax during the business year 2007 of the instant disposition ** in the business year 2007.

2) Meanwhile, Article 26-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that national taxes may not be imposed after five years from the date on which the national taxes can be imposed (No. 3): Provided, That where a taxpayer evades national taxes, obtains refund or deduction by deceit or other unlawful acts, ten years (No. 1), and where a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return within the statutory due date of return, seven years (No. 2) may not be imposed after the due date of return. According to Article 12-3(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the statutory due date of imposition of national taxes shall be calculated from the date following the due date of filing of the tax base and tax amount of the national tax or the due date of submission of the tax return (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Du3140, Jun. 22, 199; 2007Du2464, May 28, 2009).

3. Suspension of execution of the instant disposition

According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the execution of the disposition of this case requires urgent measures to prevent irrecoverable damage to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the suspension of execution may have a significant impact on public welfare due to the suspension of execution. Thus, the execution of the disposition of this case shall be suspended ex officio from the date of 15 days after the

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.