[종합소득세등부과처분취소][공1993.5.1.(943),1181]
Whether a corporation's failure to attach shares due to its failure to comply with a request for delivery of shares constitutes the requirements for secondary tax liability under Article 40 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (negative)
Article 40 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the secondary liability for tax payment arises only in the event that the applicant does not sell the stocks or investment shares of the investor, even though the applicant did not want to do so after the seizure of the stocks or investment shares of the investor, and it is apparent that the secondary liability for tax payment arises. In addition, considering the fact that the secondary liability for tax payment arises as a supplement to the procedure of default of national taxes, etc., and that the interpretation of tax laws and regulations must be strict, the fact that the applicant failed to comply with the request for delivery of stocks and did not seize the stocks cannot be deemed to have satisfied
Article 40 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
Attorney Park Young-chul, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
The Director of the Pacific District Office
Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu21232 delivered on July 24, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence adopted by the non-party, failed to pay the above amount of 253,593,200 won at any time on August 31, 198. Thus, the court below determined that the non-party, as of the expiration date of the above payment period, constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder of the company under subparagraph 2 of Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes in excess of 51/100 of the total amount of shares issued by the plaintiff, and that the non-party, who did not have any other enforcement property, was not subject to the above provision of Article 40 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes or the provision of Article 12 of the same Act concerning the transfer of shares at the time of the non-party's request for the delivery of shares. Thus, the court below determined that the non-party, who did not meet the above provision of the above provision of the Act, should be subject to the reduction of the tax amount of the non-party's shares at any time.
In light of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the records, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.