[관세부과처분취소][공1974.7.15.(492),7912]
Whether the secondary taxpayer may be designated by applying or applying Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act mutatis mutandis to the collection of customs duties.
With respect to the collection of customs duties, the secondary person liable for duty payment may not be designated by applying or applying mutatis mutandis Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act.
Article 23 of the Customs Act, Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act
Attorney Lee Dong-chul Industrial Co., Ltd.
Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 72Gu609 delivered on December 19, 1973
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the provisions of Article 1 of the National Tax Collection Act, the purpose of this Act is to secure the revenue of national taxes by prescribing matters necessary for the collection of national taxes. According to Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, the term "national taxes" means taxes imposed by the State, other than customs duties and money, and according to Article 2 of the same Act, customs duties and other matters provided for in this Act are governed by the provisions of other Acts. Thus, it can be seen that in principle, customs duties are different from those of other general national taxes in light of the unique nature as customs duties, and according to Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act, if the transferor or transferor's property falls short of the amount of national taxes to be collected, the transferee of the business is not liable for the second tax payment. Article 2 of the same Act provides that "The second tax liability of the transferee of the business is not applicable to the same kind of business or other similar type of business from the transferor, and it is not applicable to the second tax liability of the transferee of the business and the second tax liability of the transferee of the business."
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)