(a) A case of request for cancellation of a business license for reasons of arrears with national taxes which fail to meet the requirements under Article 7 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act; and

(b) Whether a request for business cancellation that satisfies the requirements for recovery of arrears due to the occurrence of a new arrears is cured;

(c) Time of determining whether the disposition of business revocation is legitimate;

A. According to Article 7(2) and (4) of the National Tax Collection Act, when a person who runs a business with permission, etc. fails to pay national taxes on three or more occasions, the head of a tax office may request the competent authorities to suspend the business or cancel the permission except as provided by the Presidential Decree. The competent authorities in receipt of such request shall comply with it unless there is any justifiable reason. Meanwhile, according to Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, three or more times of arrears, which is the requirement for the cancellation of license under Article 7 of the Act, shall be calculated once a notice of tax payment for a period of one year, except in the case of corporate tax without a limited period of time and inheritance tax. As for three times of national taxes for which the Plaintiff was delinquent, the amount of value-added tax and its additional dues (the amount of tax in arrears was already paid before October 30, 1980) of the Busan Tax Office's three times of national taxes, and thus, it constitutes a violation of Article 7(2) of the National Tax Collection Act.

B. Along with the demand for the cancellation of an illegal business licence, a new arrears occurred after the demand for the cancellation of an illegal business license, the failure to pay national taxes more than three times is not cured.

C. After the disposition of cancellation of a business license on the ground that national taxes are delinquent not less than 3 times, even if the above disposition of cancellation of a business license becomes legitimate even if a cause falling short of the standards of construction business license under Article 38(1)1 of the Construction Business Act occurs, it shall be determined at the time of such disposition.

Articles 7(2) and 7(4) of the National Tax Collection Act; Articles 1 and 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Daesung Development Corporation

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu503 delivered on March 11, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

Point 1,

According to Article 7 (2) and (4) of the National Tax Collection Act, when a person who runs a business with permission, etc. fails to pay national taxes on three or more occasions, the head of a tax office may request the competent authorities to suspend the business or cancel the permission, except as otherwise provided for in the Presidential Decree. The competent authorities upon receipt of such request shall comply with it unless there is any justifiable reason. According to the facts duly established by the court below, the head of the competent Busan District Tax Office requested the Defendant to cancel the contract of 20 days before he paid the amount of value-added tax 4,484,575 won from the time of 1980 (1), (2) 35,273,455 won, additional tax 3,527,345 won (3) 6,80,800,208, 208, 2319, 29, 29, 39, 29, 29, 30, 29, 29, 319, 27, 21.

On the other hand, according to Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act, "not less than three times of arrears", which is the requirement for the cancellation of a license under Article 7 of the Act, provides for the calculation of one tax payment notice for a period of one year, except in the case of corporate tax and inheritance tax with no limit of the period, and one copy of the tax payment notice for a period of one year. As such, the above recognition is justified in the judgment below that the above (1) amount of value-added tax and its additional amount of 48,93,032 won from February 20, 1980 from the tax amount in arrears had already been paid before the cancellation of the license of the Busan Jin-si Tax Office, and it does not fall under the case of default on national taxes more than three times. Thus, the plaintiff's request for the cancellation of business license against the defendant of the Busan Jin-si Tax Office for the cancellation of a license under Article 7 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act is unlawful, and the defendant's disposition based on this premise is also unlawful.

Point 2,

If the cause for cancellation of the business license under Article 38 (1) 1 of the Construction Business Act occurred newly after the cancellation of the business license, this is the theory that the defendant can make the disposition of cancellation of the business license under Article 38 (1) 1 of the Construction Business Act for this reason. However, the legality of the disposition in this case should be determined at the time of the disposition. Thus, the judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the comparison and bridge between the public interest such as the theory of lawsuit and the private interest.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)