The legality of the disposition of corporate tax, etc. taken by the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the previous place of tax payment without procedures for designation;

Where it is deemed appropriate to impose tax on a corporation in the previous place of tax payment after filing a report on the change of the place of tax payment, such taxation shall be conducted through the procedures for designation of the place of tax payment, and where the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the previous place of

Article 7 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 44 of the Framework Act

Masung Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Head of Yeongdeungpo-do Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 79Gu66 delivered on February 19, 1980

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to Article 7(1), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 7(1)1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, corporate tax of a domestic corporation is the location of its head or main office recorded on the registry, and if the place of tax payment is changed, it shall be reported to the head of each tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment before and after the change within two weeks from the date of change. In the absence of such report, the former place of tax payment shall be the place of tax payment of the corporation, but the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall designate a place of tax payment different from the registered place of tax payment if it is deemed that the place of tax payment is not the same as the registered place of tax office or main office, or that there is a possibility of tax evasion due to separation of assets or business place from the registered place of tax payment. According to Articles 43 and 44 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall submit the tax payment report without delay.

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff company operated its business under the trade name of Hyundai Power Co., Ltd. with 18 of Busan Central District Office as 18, and changed 197 May 7, 197 to Masan Industrial Co., Ltd., and transferred 2 of 4-9 of Masan-dong 2 of 1978 to 4-9, and that the defendant who has jurisdiction over the former place of tax payment filed a report on the change of tax payment to 20th of the same month to the head of Masan-si having jurisdiction over the new place of tax payment. However, the defendant, who is the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the former place of tax payment of 1978 on July 19, 1978, on the ground that there is a concern that the plaintiff company might escape from tax without the procedure of tax payment, the court below held that the disposition of tax payment was not unlawful since it did not affect the procedure of tax payment and its imposition without the reason that the new and new tax imposed on the new place of tax payment.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)