법인세등부과처분취소
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
On May 16, 2016, the defendant was limited to B before the split-off.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows, except for the modification of the pertinent part as follows: (a) the entry on the two to three pages of the decision of the court of first instance is the same as the entry on the two to three pages of the decision of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act
2. The following shall be added to the right side of the immediate upper parallel of the two pages:
【The instant company filed a claim for rectification of KRW 570,267,310 on February 25, 2014, on the ground of the issuance of the revised tax invoices to the Defendant on February 25, 2014.
2. Whether the plaintiffs are standing to sue
A. Article 530-10 of the Commercial Act provides that “A company newly incorporated by simple division, a succeeding company by division, or a newly incorporated company by division shall succeed to the rights and obligations of a divided company in accordance with the terms and conditions of the division plan or the written agreement of the division.” 2) An appeal litigation is the only interest to be instituted by a person who has a direct and specific interest in law due to an administrative disposition, but there is no benefit to be brought by a person who has a de facto or indirect interest.
(See Supreme Court Decision 80Nu48 delivered on March 10, 1981). Although Plaintiff 2 is jointly and severally liable for tax payment with Plaintiff 1, it cannot be deemed that the effect of the duty payment notice against Plaintiff 1 extends to Plaintiff 2. Thus, Plaintiff 2 is merely an indirect interest in the taxation disposition against Plaintiff 1, and it cannot be deemed that Plaintiff 2 has a direct and specific interest in the taxation disposition against Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 2 is not a party eligible for seeking the revocation of the taxation disposition against Plaintiff 1.
(See Supreme Court Decision 82Nu506 delivered on August 23, 1983, etc.). B.
Judgment
In light of the above legal principles, each of the statements in evidence Nos. 6, 7, 21, and 35 with respect to the instant case shall be considered as a whole.