The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of each of the statements in subparagraph 1, subparagraph 3-2, subparagraph 5, subparagraph 19, subparagraph 20, subparagraph 1, subparagraph 20, subparagraph 1, 2, and 3, subparagraph 5-1, 2, and 5-3, and some of the testimony by the witness ○○○○, and there is no other counter-proof.

A. The plaintiff's status

○○ Radon Co., Ltd. is a corporation that manufactures, processes, and sells chemical fiberss. On November 30, 1993, the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy of ○ Radon Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was declared bankrupt on November 30, 1993 by the Seoul District Court’s 93Hadon Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○ Radon Co., Ltd.”)

B. Details of the instant disposition

On September 12, 1979, the bankrupt company was ordered to commence the company reorganization procedure in the branch of the Seoul District Court in Seoul District Court on September 12, 1959.The bankruptcy company was addicted to the eulane that occurred in the process of manufacturing checks, and the factory operation rate was significantly lowered due to the difficulties of increased vocational patients due to the lack of technical personnel. On March 5, 1993, the industrial policy council decided to close the company's factory operation on July 5, 1993. Accordingly, the bankruptcy company was under bankruptcy procedure after the closure announcement on August 10, 1993, and the bankruptcy company was under bankruptcy procedure after being declared bankrupt on November 30, 1993.

The defendant deemed that the bankrupt company closed its business on July 10, 1993, and the bankrupt company completed and submitted a provisional settlement statement as of July 31, 1993 pursuant to Article 6 (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), and that the bankrupt company supplies the inventory assets remaining at the time of the closure of its business to itself, and thus, the bankrupt company shall be deemed to have supplied 3,205,017,375 won of the book value at the market price of the inventory goods as of October 16, 193. Accordingly, the bankrupt company imposed 320,501,730 won of the value-added tax for the second period of December 1993 as of December 12, 1994, the defendant reduced 54,305,500 won of the above amount of tax as of July 36, 196, and imposed the disposition of imposition of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

As to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is a legitimate disposition in accordance with the grounds for the disposition and the relevant statutes, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

"(1) If the bankruptcy company paid the closure of its business on July 10, 1993, it is only one of the measures to solve the labor-management disputes caused by the exposure to the occupation-related patient, and it does not substantially discontinue its business. For this reason, the bankruptcy company did not follow the legal procedures to report the closure of its business or return its business registration certificate, and even if it is in bankruptcy proceedings, it has continued to maintain its status by issuing a tax invoice for the transaction generated whenever its residual assets are liquidated, and filing a return of value-added tax and paying the value-added tax. Therefore, the bankruptcy company cannot be seen as at the time of July 1993, and the date of actual closure of its residual assets shall not be deemed as the actual discontinuance of business." (2) Even if the date of closure of its business is deemed as at the time of the above closure of its business, the company should be deemed as having completed its current market price based on the current status of its actual sale of inventory assets at the market price at the time of its settlement of accounts and the actual inventory assets at the market price.

(b) Review of relevant statutes;

In order to determine the legitimacy of the instant disposition, the following provisions are examined in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

Where a registered businessman closes his business, he shall submit without delay a report of closure to the head of the competent tax office along with a business registration certificate (Article 5 (4) of the Act, Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree). The date of closure of the business shall be the date of actual closure by the place of business (Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act)."

The tax base of value-added tax on the supply of inventory goods in the case of closure of business shall be the market price (Article 13 (1) 4 of the Act). In this case, the market price shall be the price formed in normal transactions with persons other than the business operator and the related parties (referring to the persons provided for in each subparagraph of Article 111 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or each subparagraph of Article 46 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax

If an entrepreneur is likely to evade value-added taxes due to his closure of business, the Government shall rectify (Article 21 (1) 4 of the Act and Article 68 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree) the tax base of value-added tax or the amount of refund thereof, by investigation

C. Determination

(1) On the date of closure

As acknowledged in the above facts, if the factory of the bankrupt company was suspended from March 1993, and the measure of closure of the bankrupt company was decided by the Industrial Policy Council on July 5 of the same year, and accordingly the bankrupt company was announced to close its business on July 10 of the same month, the bankruptcy company should be deemed to have practically discontinued its business at the latest, and the bankruptcy company did not follow the procedure of closure of its business. Furthermore, even if the bankruptcy company sold the remaining goods after the closure of its business, it is limited to the method of disposal of the remaining assets after the closure of its business, and it cannot be deemed that the bankruptcy company continues to maintain its business status (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1960, Jan. 15, 1991). Accordingly, the defendant's assertion that the bankruptcy company's closedown of the remaining assets as of July 10, 1993 should not be deemed to have been legitimate at the latest as of July 10, 199.

(2) As to the tax base

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings with respect to the testimony of the witness No. 1, 2, 3 and No. 5-1, 2, and 3 and some testimony of the witness No. ○○○○.

"The defendant tried to appraise the market price of the goods remaining at the time of the closure of the bankruptcy company. However, it is difficult to assess the tax base of the value-added tax of this case on the grounds that it is difficult for the plaintiff to request the bankruptcy company to present the settlement of accounts and to present the settlement of accounts as of July 31, 1993 (Evidence No. 5-3), on the grounds that it is difficult for the company to present the settlement of accounts and to present the settlement of accounts for the remaining goods at the time of the closure of the bankruptcy company as a substitute on the balance sheet and annexed documents, and it is difficult for the company to present the settlement of accounts for the remaining goods at the time of the closure of its business, on the grounds that it is difficult for the company to present the settlement of accounts with the actual quantity of the inventory goods at the time of its closure of its business and the normal market price of the goods at the time of its closure of its business, and on the grounds that it is difficult for the company to present its inventory assets at the time of its closure of its business.

However, as seen in the above facts, it was revealed that the goods which were imported as non-imported goods on the settlement of accounts were not actually remaining at the time of the closure of the bankruptcy company, so the amount of KRW 34,420,831 should be deducted from the tax base of the value-added tax of this case.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the products of the gold 5,478,208 won under the above provisional settlement of accounts are damaged to make it impossible to sell them actually, and that other products than the above imported and non-imported items are not included in the actual remaining quantity at the time of the closure of the bankruptcy company's business, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, even if the actual remaining quantity of the goods does not fall short of those under the above provisional settlement of accounts, in the case of calculating the market price by recognizing the quantity of the remaining goods under the above provisional settlement of accounts submitted by the defendant, the plaintiff must prove how the actual quantity falls under the actual quantity, and there is no evidence to prove this point (for more than 5 months and more than 1 year and 3 months after the closure of the bankruptcy company's business, the quantity of goods remaining at the time of the closure of the bankruptcy company's business). Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be seen as any ground.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful only for the part of the value-added tax amount of KRW 3,442,083 (34,420,831x10/100) and the remaining part of KRW 262,754,147 (266,196,230-3,442,083) is legitimate. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of seeking revocation of the part exceeding the above amount of KRW 262,754,147 among the disposition of this case. The remaining claims are dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.