(a) The base point for taxation claims as reorganization claims;

B. Whether the legitimacy of the unpaid portion is recognized solely on the grounds that a taxation claim constitutes a reorganization claim (negative)

(a) Where a tax claim against the reorganization company is established before the decision on commencing a company reorganization procedure, such taxation claim shall become a reorganization claim even after the commencement of such disposition is made;

B. As with respect to tax claims which are reorganization claims, the reorganization company may obtain deferment of collection or pay it with the permission of the court under Article 17 of the National Tax Collection Act, it cannot be deemed that there exists a justifiable reason in the payment deadline limit only for the grounds that tax claims constitute reorganization claims.

(a) Article 102 of the Company Reorganization Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu6 delivered on December 22, 1981

Seoul Commercial Code Co., Ltd.

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu32 delivered on December 2, 1981

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a tax claim against the reorganization company was established before the commencement of the company reorganization procedure, even if the taxation disposition was made after the commencement of the company reorganization procedure, the taxation claim shall be deemed a reorganization claim. As determined by the court below, the taxation claim of KRW 217,689,564, the tax claim of KRW 217,689,564, which the defendant imposed on the new Seoul company on October 25, 1979 and KRW 217,689,564, as determined by the court below, respectively, was formed on January 25, 1980 and the decision to commence the company reorganization procedure against the new Seoul company was made on February 1, 1980, the above taxation claim shall be deemed a reorganization claim. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the above taxation claim is a reorganization claim, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the above new Seoul Commercial Corporation did not pay 217,689,564 won, such as value-added tax, which is a reorganization claim, by March 24, 1980, and that the defendant notified the above new Seoul Commercial Corporation of the payment of additional 21,768,956 won, which is the payment deadline. Even if the taxpayer failed to pay the notified tax by the payment deadline, if there is a justifiable reason, the additional dues under Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act cannot be imposed. The above new Seoul Commercial Corporation's failure to pay 217,689,564 won, which is the above notified tax payment deadline, can not be repaid by March 24, 1980, since the above taxation claim, which is a reorganization claim, can be repaid without resorting to reorganization proceedings, and there is no evidence by the defendant as to the fact that it is possible to repay the tax voluntarily without following reorganization proceedings, and thus the above disposition cannot be exempted from the above payment deadline and additional dues.

However, a tax claim, which is a reorganization claim, can be repaid without the permission of the court (the proviso of Article 112 of the Company Reorganization Act), and where it is recognized that a taxpayer cannot pay a national tax notified for the reasons falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 15 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act, after receiving the notice of tax payment, by the payment deadline, the collection may be deferred (Article 17 of the same Act) and the collection of additional dues under Article 21 of the same Act shall not be deferred (Article 19 of the same Act). Thus, in order for a reorganization company which has received the notice of tax payment to be exempted from the collection of additional dues, it shall pay the notified amount within the payment deadline after receiving the notice of tax payment for the reorganization claim, which is a reorganization claim, or after obtaining the permission of the court. If the reorganization company fails to pay the amount of tax notified without the above deferment period, the collection of additional dues under Article 21 of the same Act cannot be exempted. Thus, the court below's decision on the collection of additional dues is justified.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)