(a) Whether or not a person who has acquired all stocks of the brewing company and obtained a allocation on behalf of the company, may be deemed the secondary taxpayer as the transferee of the business;

(b) The meaning of the tax that the business transferee owes to the secondary tax liability;

A. Even if the brewing company sold all the shares owned by it to the Plaintiff and applied for revocation of alcoholic beverage licenses, and the company received the allocation from the National Tax Service on behalf of the Plaintiff, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as the secondary business transferee who is the secondary taxpayer of the company.

(b) The amount of tax that the business transferee assumes shall be the amount of tax that has already been imposed on the transferor at the time of business transfer;

Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Decision 74Nu269 Delivered on July 11, 1978

Attorney Lee J-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

For the purpose of transmitting litigation performers by the head of the original district tax office;

Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu532 delivered on September 24, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below held that the plaintiff purchased 5,00 shares of 5,00 shares of the non-party 1's 26 July 26, 1974 and applied for the revocation of alcoholic beverage licenses by the non-party 19 of the same year that the non-party 2 did not constitute a transferee of the second taxpayer's business as provided in Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just in holding that the non-party 2 cannot be viewed as the plaintiff's person liable for tax payment in light of the above legal principles and the purport of the non-party 1's provision of Article 41 of the former National Tax Collection Act (Act No. 819) and Article 5 (Decree No. 4809) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Decree No. 4809), Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (the non-party 2).

2. In addition, since the tax amount to be imposed by the business transferee should be the tax already imposed on the transferor at the time of the transfer of the business (see Supreme Court Decision 74Nu269 delivered on July 11, 1978), it is clear in the record that the tax amount to be imposed on the above non-party company, the withholding agent of Class A employment income of the representative, is imposed on the non-party company in the business year of the above non-party company from January 1, 1974 to December 31, 1974, and it is apparent that the plaintiff's acquisition of shares and the tax amount to be imposed on the non-party company prior to the allocation of spirits has not occurred or has not been imposed on the non-party company in accordance with the purport of the defendant's oral argument, even if the plaintiff is assumed by the business transferee, the second tax imposition disposition of this case is justified. Therefore, the decision of the court below ordering the cancellation of the second tax payment disposition of this case is justified, and it is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)