Demurrer against distribution

Chuncheon District Court Youngcheon Branch 2014Gadan10132

○ ○

Korea

December 3, 2014

January 21, 2015

Cheong-gu Office

Chuncheon District Court's Youngcheon Branch 201Tenz.** (2012Tenz.*** in 2012Tenz.** in 2013) real estate

A copy of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on February 14, 2014 to the plaintiff in relation to the case of application for compulsory auction

○○○○○○○ KRW 00,000, and ○○○○○ on the Defendant’s dividend amount as KRW 0.0

Correction. Each correction.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

On June 20, 201, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the real estate auction (hereinafter referred to as the "each building of this case") on June 20, 201. However, the auction court of this case, however, on the ground that the statutory deadline for the tax claim against the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the tax claim of this case") is prior to the registration date of establishment of a mortgage over the real estate auction (hereinafter referred to as "the auction of this case"), and that the statutory deadline for the tax claim against the real estate auction (hereinafter referred to as "the auction of this case"), which is the object of the auction of this case, is prior to the registration date of establishment of a mortgage over each building of this case * the Plaintiff's dividends from each building of this case * the Defendant's 102, 201, 202, 101, 102, 202, 201, 201, 201, 202, 201.

2. Determination

As long as a taxation disposition cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course, the administrative disposition is valid until it is lawfully revoked by the process of administrative act or by the executory power. Thus, the validity of the above administrative disposition cannot be denied in the civil procedure. In order to make the administrative disposition null and void as a matter of course, the disposition is unlawful and its defect is important and apparent, and the apparent defect here refers to the apparent defect in the administrative disposition itself is clearly revealed objectively and externally (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da26690 delivered on October 22, 191).

According to Article 39(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124 of Dec. 31, 2011), where the property of a corporation is insufficient to cover national taxes, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears imposed or to be paid by the corporation with the property of the corporation, persons who actually exercise the rights to stocks or investment exceeding 50/100 of the total number of issued stocks or total amount of investment of the relevant corporation among oligopolistic stockholders, or persons who actually exercise the rights to the stocks or investment shares in excess of the total number of issued stocks or total amount of investment of the relevant corporation, and persons who actually exercise the management of the corporation regardless of their titles such as honorary chairperson, president, president, vice president, managing director, managing director, director, and others, regardless of their titles, are subject to secondary tax liability for the shortage amount. According to Article 39(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 111124 of Dec.

갑 제1호증의 기재에 의하면, 피고(삼성세무서)가 이 사건 경매절차에서 교부청구한 국세체납액은 소외 회사가 체납한 국세에 관한 부분인 사실은 인정되나, 을 제1 내지 9호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 피고는 당초 2009. 12. 31. 직권폐업된 소외 회사의 국세 체납액에 대한 2차 납세의무자로 주주명부상 소외회사의 주식70%를 보유한 것으로 되어 있는 ◐◐◐과, 20%를 보유한 것으로 되어 있는 ◐◐◐의 처 ▣▣▣을 지정하였는데, ◐◐◐, ▣▣▣이 주식양도를 이유로 제2차 납세의무자 지정을 취소해달라고 고충신고를 하자, 위 주식을 실질적으로 행사한 주주가 소외 회사의 대표이사인 ◇◇◇이라고 판단하여, 2010. 10. 8.경 ◐◐◐, ▣▣▣에 대한 제2차 납세의무자 지정을 취소하고, 2010. 11. 17. ◇◇◇을 소외 회사의 국세 체납액에 대한 제2차 납세의무자로 지정한 사실, ◐◐◐, ▣▣▣은 고충신고를 하면서 2003. 10. 17.경 ◇◇◇에게 소외 회사를 양도하였고, 그 때부터는 ◇◇◇이 ◐◐◐, ▣▣▣의 주식에 관한 권리를 실질적으로 행사하였으며, ◇◇◇의 동생인 ◵◵◵로부터 양도대금을 지급받았다고 주장하였는데, 실제 ◐◐◐은 2003. 10. 24. ◵◵◵로부터 ***원을, 소외 회사 양도 후인 2004. 2. 17. 소외 회사로부터 ***원을 지급받은 사실, 소외 회사의 2007. 3. 10.자 임시주주총회 의사록에는 소외 회사의 주주가 ◇◇◇과 *** 2명인 것으로 기재되어 있는 사실, 피고는 ◇◇◇을 소외 회사의 국세 체납액에 대한 2차 납세의무자로 지정한 후 2010. 11. 17. 및 2010. 11. 19.경 ◇◇◇에게 납부통지서를 발송하여 납부고지를 하였고, ◇◇◇은 2010. 11. 22.경 이를 송달받았는데, ◇◇◇이 이후 피고에게 이의를 제기하였다는 자료는 없는 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 비추어 보면, 원고가 제출한 증거들만으로는 피고가 ◇◇◇을 소외 회사의 국세체납액에 대한 2차 납세의무자로 지정하여 한 위 과세처분에 중대한 하자가 있다거나, 그 하자가 객관적, 외형상으로 명백하다고 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.