Whether a notice of designation of a secondary taxpayer constitutes an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (negative)

The second tax liability shall be established abstractly by the occurrence of the fact that falls under the requirements such as the delinquency of the principal taxpayer and determined specifically by the notification of payment. Thus, the second tax liability notification without specific tax liability shall not be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

Articles 39 and 12 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu29 delivered on February 4, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the property of a corporation is insufficient to cover the national tax, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears imposed or payable by the corporation, a person corresponding to the prescribed provisions of the same Article as of the date on which the liability to pay national tax is established shall be deemed to have secondary liability to pay such shortage. According to Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act, when the head of a tax office wishes to collect the national tax, additional dues, or disposition fee for arrears collected from the secondary taxpayer, he shall notify the taxpayer by a notice of payment stating the tax year of taxation, amount of tax, calculation basis, payment period, place of payment, the amount to be collected from the secondary taxpayer, the calculation basis thereof, and other necessary matters. Therefore, the second tax liability of the Plaintiffs is not specifically determined by a notice of designation of the second taxpayer under Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act, and it cannot be deemed that the second tax liability of the Plaintiffs is unlawful because the second taxpayer is not specifically determined by a notice of designation of the second taxpayer under subparagraph 2 of the same Article.

2. Article 92 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which is cited by the theory of lawsuit, enters into force from January 1, 1977 with the provision newly established pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 8350 of December 31, 1976, and the corporate tax on the income of a corporation for each business year shall be applied from the first end of this Decree after this Decree enters into force. Thus, there is no room for application of the corporate tax for the year 1976 of the New Ornacian Commercial Corporation, which ends from January 1, 1976 to December 31 of the same year. Thus, there is no reason for filing a lawsuit regarding this issue, and even by the record, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit or in the violation of

Therefore, without merit, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)