1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to Articles 10 (1) 3 and 14 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4661 of Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same), where income tax is withheld by a corporation, the place of tax payment shall be the seat of the head office or the principal office of the corporation, and income tax shall be imposed by the head of the tax office or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment. Meanwhile, pursuant to Articles 43 and 44 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a return of tax base shall be submitted to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment at the time of the report. The determination of the tax base and the amount of national tax shall be made with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment at the time of the report, and if the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment at the time of tax payment at the time of the report is made by mistake, the report shall be made without delay.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below is just in holding that the tax collection disposition of the Class A of this case filed by the defendant who has jurisdiction over the location of the main office of the non-party company of Busan Shipping Daegu ( Address 1 omitted) at the time of the collection disposition of this case, which is the location of the main office of the non-party company of the non-party company of Busan (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company of this case") was unlawful as it is a taxation disposition without jurisdiction, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the place of tax payment as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal pointing

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Based on the evidence in its reasoning, the lower court acknowledged the fact that, according to the balance settlement statement (No. 6-4) of the Plaintiff Company’s account books, the Plaintiff paid the Nonparty Company KRW 241,457,887 as advance payment and the intermediate payment of KRW 150,983,597, which was KRW 392,441,484, the Plaintiff’s representative director at that time used the said money as debt repayment funds of the Nonparty Company without paying the said money to the Nonparty Company.

However, according to the evidence No. 5 (Transfer and Receipt Agreement, Record No. 71) adopted by the lower court, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the non-party company at least on the date of the above contract, barring any special circumstance. In addition, if the Plaintiff used the above advance payment of KRW 241,457,87 and intermediate payment of KRW 150,983,597 for the non-party company’s debt repayment without paying it to the non-party company, it is not necessary to record the advance payment and intermediate payment separately from the other items (paragraphs 4 through 5) of the non-party company’s debt repayment of the non-party company in light of the fact that the Plaintiff used the above advance payment of KRW 241,457,87 and the intermediate payment of KRW 150,983,97 for the non-party company’s debt repayment of KRW 97,290,98,299,290,299,290, etc. of the above balance payment of the non-party company’s account.

Nevertheless, without examining whether to pay the down payment as stated in the evidence No. 5, the court below correctly believed only the testimony of the person who has an interest with the Plaintiff or who cannot be deemed to have an objective value as evidence in a special relationship with the Plaintiff, and recognized the facts as stated in its reasoning. Thus, it cannot be said that the violation of the rules of evidence or failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal is with merit.

B. The court below, based on the evidence in its holding, acknowledged the fact that the non-party 2, the representative director of the non-party company of the non-party 2, who was the non-party company, paid 88,507,368 won in total to the non-party company's creditors, including 209,00,000 won loaned to the non-party 3, the representative director of the non-party 2, who was the non-party company, for the purpose of paying the fees for the use of state property in arrears after the non-party company's default, and subrogated to the non-party company's debt 418,643,68 won for the non-party company's non-party mutual savings and finance company's non-party consideration.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the imposition of value-added tax is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court. The remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)