Collections

Scope of seizure and collection of money equivalent to the transfer income tax under a contract between private persons who are responsible for tax and public imposts;

U.S. District Court Decision 200 U.S. District Court

Part 14 Civil History

2014 Gohap39602 Collection Money

Determination as the total determined amount of capital gains tax due to a sales contract shall be made by January 31, 2014.

The notice was given.

F. On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff collected the transfer income tax of this case and the additional dues thereon.

An amount equivalent to the delinquent amount of the transfer income tax of this case out of the claims against the defendant of J Kim 00

The attachment was notified to the Defendant on September 4, 2014.

G. The total amount of the instant capital gains tax as at November 24, 2014, the filing date of the instant lawsuit, and the final tax amount and KRW 1.

The total amount of the capital gains tax is KRW 103,763,490 (=the total determined amount of capital gains tax + the additional amount of KRW 12,582,850, and less than KRW 10).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 4 to 6

each entry, the whole purport of the pleading, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts of recognition, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant shall enter into the instant special agreement with Kim 00.

pursuant to the agreement, 68,208,146 won equivalent to the determined tax amount of the capital gains tax of this case, and any delayed damage

The defendant is obligated to pay the gold, and the defendant is in subrogation of Kim 00 pursuant to Article 41 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act.

The plaintiff who exercises the right of collection against the plaintiff, the defendant's above 68,208,146 won and the lawsuit of this case

From November 29, 2014, the day following the date of service of the book, the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform this case

the year prescribed by the Civil Act until June 11, 2015, which is the date of the declaration of this decision, appropriate for a dispute to be raised.

5% and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

There is an obligation to pay damages for delay at each rate.

The Plaintiff is in excess of the determined amount of the transfer income tax of this case.

Additional tax for failure to file a report on 13,641,629 won and additional tax for failure to pay 9,330,874 won and capital gains;

The amount of additional 12,582,850 won due to the failure to pay the total amount of tax determined by the tax, so knife, cattle

In principle, capital gains tax under the tax law bears the obligation of the transferor to report and pay the amount.

Data for calculating the tax base of the Do income tax (data for calculating the acquisition value, necessary expenses, etc.)

In light of the fact that the transferor owns most of the transferor, the transferor and the transferor of the real estate sales contract.

Even if the transferee agreed to pay the transfer income tax to the transferee, such agreement is special.

Unless there are circumstances, the transferor shall report and pay the capital gains tax on his/her own.

It is an agreement that the transferee shall pay the transferor an amount equivalent to the determined amount of capital gains tax.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view the transferor’s money equivalent to the tax amount determined on capital gains tax against the transferee.

In addition to seeking the payment of damages for delay on its own, the transferor's own new transfer income tax

Additional tax for failure to file a return due to failure to pay the tax, additional tax for failure to pay the tax, and transfer income tax;

It would not be possible to seek the payment of additional dues due to the failure to pay the total amount of the final tax.

The statement of evidence Nos. 3 and 4 alone by the defendant shall report and pay the transfer income tax on behalf of Kim 00.

It is not sufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement with the terms and conditions, and otherwise, evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the Defendant’s failure to report, additional tax for failure to report, additional tax for failure to pay, and transfer income tax

A plaintiff on the premise that he/she has the right to seek additional dues due to the failure to pay the total amount of final tax.

claim under this section shall not be reasonable.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Determination as to the assertion of defects in obligee subrogation requirements

In order for the plaintiff to exercise the right to claim against the defendant Kim 00, the defendant Kim 00

As a requirement to be insolvent, Kim 00 is not insolvent, and thus, the plaintiff is not insolvent.

I argue that it would not be possible to do so.

The seizure of claims under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act, with or without the creditor of the claims subject to seizure.

Any act of disposal, such as repayment, collection, etc. of claims, against an unqualified person, shall be prohibited and delinquent

It is possible to collect on behalf of another (Supreme Court Decision 9Da3686 delivered on May 14, 199, etc.).

A) Claim for the payment of the debtor's monetary claim on behalf of the debtor under Article 404 of the Civil Code

In the case, the debtor's insolvency is required, but in light of the above legal principles, the case

Pursuant to Article 41 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act, collection of the delinquent's claims by subrogation of the delinquent taxpayer;

In the case of insolvency of a delinquent taxpayer, such insolvency does not require such insolvency.

Attachment Requirements (=Repaid of National Tax in Arrears) In accordance with Article 41(1)

The above argument shall be without merit to the obligor.

B. Claim on the non-performance of the obligation equivalent to capital gains tax

The defendant, when profits accrue from the business of this case, equivalent to the transfer income tax to Kim 00

The transfer agency shall pay the amount, as the project of this case was not yet commenced.

It argues that the due date of the obligation to pay the amount equivalent to the acquisition tax has not yet arrived.

Note B, the terms and conditions of the agreement of the project of this case as mentioned above and the statements in Note B Nos. 3 to 6

Income from transfer after Kim00 accrued to the defendant due to the project in this case

It is insufficient to recognize that the amount equivalent to the tax has been paid, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are accepted.

Korea

The Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea

Litigation Performers Rules Governing Public-Service Advocates

00 Construction

The representative director, senior 00

Attorney Choi Han-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

May 28, 2015

June 11, 2015

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 68,208,146 won with 5% interest per annum from November 29, 2014 to June 11, 2015, and 0% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant of the Gu office shall pay to the plaintiff 103,763,490 won with 20% interest per annum from November 29, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 30, 2012, Kim 00 entered into a special agreement with the Defendant that the Defendant would sell the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) at KRW 280,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”); and that “the Defendant will bear capital gains tax and taxes and public charges pertaining to the purchase and sale of the instant land” (hereinafter referred to as “instant special agreement”).

B. On August 9, 2012, the Defendant entered into an agreement with 000 U.S. Forest Co., Ltd., Ltd., 000 00 00 000 00 000 000 0000 000 000 000 200 200 200 200 200 202 200 200 200 200 200 202 200 200 200 202 20 200 20 200 200 20 20 202 20 202 20 20 200 202 20 202 200 20 300 30

C. On August 13, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land in the name of the Defendant pursuant to the instant sales contract.

(d) A person who transfers land shall file a return on the tax base of transfer income calculated under the Income Tax Act with the head of the competent tax office within two months from the end of the month in which the date of transfer falls (Articles 105(1)1, 94(1)1, and 92(2) of the Income Tax Act, and where a person liable for tax payment fails to file a return on the tax base of national taxes under the tax-related Acts by the statutory deadline for filing a return, an amount equivalent to 20/100 of the amount of tax to be paid by such return shall be the penalty tax (Articles 47 and 47-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and where a person liable for tax payment fails to pay a national tax by the due date under the tax-related Acts, i.e., the amount by the following formula, i., the amount of tax not paid? The period from the day following the due date for payment to the date of voluntary payment or the date of tax payment notice; and

E. Kim 00 did not report the transfer income tax arising from the instant sales contract until September 30, 2012, which was the due date for filing a return of the transfer income tax due to the instant sales contract.

F. On January 1, 2014, the Plaintiff, on the ground that Kim 00 filed a return of capital gains tax due to the instant sales contract, was not paid by 68,208,146 won (hereinafter “instant capital gains tax amount”), 13,641,629 won, additional tax for unfaithful return, 9,330,874 won, additional tax for unfaithful return, 9,649 won (=68,208,146 won + 13,641,629 won + 9,30,874 won). Therefore, the Plaintiff is dismissed as per Disposition.

The deputy judge of the presiding judge;