[물적납세의무자지정처분취소][공1979.3.15.(604),11619]
The case holding that the method of notification and payment notice to material taxpayers is lawful;
In the event that the secondary person liable for tax payment does not correct the secondary letter as a material taxpayer and the payment notice is given without correcting Article 29 of the National Tax Collection Act to Article 13 and Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act, it is deemed that, even if the secondary letter is not corrected to Article 13 and Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act, the person liable for tax payment is the material taxpayer and the payment notice should be deemed to have been given to the person liable for tax payment.
Article 42 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 13 and 12 of the National Tax Collection Act
Plaintiff 1 and two others, Attorneys Lee Dong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Head of the tax office;
Seoul High Court Decision 77Gu238 delivered on May 30, 1978
The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the plaintiffs filed a provisional registration on February 9, 1976 for the purpose of preserving the right to claim for transfer registration of ownership based on the purchase and sale reservation on the same day, and that the registration was made under the names of the plaintiffs on July 7 of the same year, and that the above registration constitutes a case where the above real estate was provided as a security for transfer in order to secure the above non-party's obligation to the plaintiffs, and that the above non-party was the person liable for the payment of the above delinquent tax, etc. on the ground that he was the above non-party's position, defense tax, and the above non-party was the person liable for the payment of the above delinquent tax, and based on the evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, the court below found that the defendant sent a notice to the plaintiffs that the above non-party stated the second taxpayer as the person liable for tax payment and paid the above delinquent tax to the plaintiffs. Thus, the court below held that the above notification was not revoked.
However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below and the records, the defendant appears to be a case where the above non-party who is a taxpayer provides real estate to the plaintiffs as collateral for securing obligations against the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant can collect the non-party's deferred tax amount with the above non-party's property transferred for security pursuant to Article 42 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the collection procedure requires the plaintiff, etc., who is a mortgagee, to notify the tax payment by putting emphasis on the payment notice procedure against the second taxpayer under Article 13 of the National Tax Collection Act. In this case, the defendant examined the above payment notice procedure against the plaintiff, etc., and the defendant used the second taxpayer's notice of tax payment under Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act as it is. The defendant did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the non-party's material taxpayer's second taxpayer's tax payment notice procedure under Article 13 of the National Tax Collection Act, but it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the non-party's material taxpayer's second taxpayer's tax payment notice.
Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)