(a) In cases where the original taxation disposition has been modified by reduction, that is the subject of administrative litigation;

B. The meaning of the business transferee who bears the secondary tax liability

A. In a case where the tax authority rendered a decision of correction that reduces part of the initial tax disposition, the tax authority’s decision of correction is nothing more than revoking part of the amount of tax determined in the initial tax disposition, and thus, the original disposition remains in existence within the scope of reduction, and thus, the subject of appeal litigation is not a correction disposition, but a part that remains not revoked by the decision of correction in the initial

B. Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act comprehensively succeeds to all rights and obligations concerning the business should succeed to the legal status of the same degree as that of the transferor by taking over the transferor’s trade name, goodwill, intangible property rights and all claims, material rights and obligations concerning its business as well as its trade name, goodwill, intangible property rights and debts, etc. from the transferor.

(a) Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu50 Decided July 8, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 81Nu134 Decided December 13, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu255 Decided October 28, 1986

Hong General Construction Company

Head of Gwangju District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu118 delivered on December 12, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the First Ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below decided based on evidence that the defendant (the head of Ansan Tax Office at the time) designated the plaintiff on May 10, 1984 as the second taxpayer of the non-party literature comprehensive construction corporation and the lawfully notified the payment, as well as that it confirmed the fact that the correction of the amount was made on March 26, 1985, and did not cancel part of the amount of tax determined on the initial disposition, and therefore, the original disposition remains in existence within the scope of the reduced amount, and therefore, it is not the correction disposition but the original disposition remains in existence.

The court below's fact-finding and judgment are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence as alleged.

Even according to the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 23 and 24-1 and 24-2, the defendant has pride that the defendant is the subject of the appeal litigation of this case. The assertion is groundless.

With respect to the second ground:

Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the transferee shall comprehensively succeed to all rights and duties (excluding rights and duties related to amounts receivable and unpaid) with respect to the business of the transferee in the secondary tax liability of the transferee, and that the transferee shall succeed to the legal status of the same degree as the transferor by taking over all rights and duties with respect to the business from the transferor as well as its trade name, goodwill, intangible property rights and claims related to the business, obligations related thereto, and other personal rights and duties, as well as all rights and duties of the transferor (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu134, Dec. 13, 1983, etc.).

Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or by violating the rules of evidence, as alleged in the measure that the plaintiff cannot be seen as the business transferee as provided by the above Article, on the basis of the facts duly admitted based on the evidence, because it merely takes over only the construction business license from the non-party's general construction company. The argument is groundless.

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

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)