beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) is based on the disposition to change the value-added tax imposed on F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on December 18, 2012, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant charges on the grounds that the Defendant’s refund of value-added tax received and used by the Defendant ought to be returned to the State, and that there was no room for the Defendant to be attributed to the Victim International Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “International Trust”), the assignee of the claim, from the beginning, and therefore, the Defendant cannot be recognized
However, after the judgment of the court below, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to deduct the input tax amount received by F from the disposition of change and imposition of the above value-added tax and correct the tax base and tax amount. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on the premise of change and imposition of the wrong value-added tax.
2. Determination
A. In a case where a debtor collects a claim and receives money from the debtor before the transferor notifies the transferor of the assignment of the claim, unless the obligor fails to meet the requisite to set up against the assignee, the repayment made by the debtor to the transferor is valid, and as a result, the claim that was reverted to the assignee is extinguished, but this is a repayment for the claim that is reverted to the transferor and the transferor who does not have any authority over the claim. Thus, as a natural conclusion of the assignment of claim, it cannot be received for the purpose of reverting the money to the transferee, and it is only possible to receive the money only to deliver it to the transferee, and the money received by the transferor belongs to the ownership of the transferor and the transferee, and the transferor is in the custody of
Supreme Court en banc Decision 97Do666 delivered on April 15, 1999.