The case holding that a person who produces the same kind of goods as the factory facilities of the company after having purchased all the company's assets and agreed to pay the company's debts to the bank with the purchase price to be paid to the company is the transferee of the business under Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act.

A company A agreed to purchase all its own real estate and movable property from Eul and to pay its debts to Eul with the above sales price, and the company A produced the same kind of goods using the factory and facilities used in the manufacture of goods from that time. On the other hand, if Eul does not have any property to be liquidated after dissolution, it is the secondary taxpayer who acquired the business under Article 16 of the former National Tax Collection Act (No. 819 of Dec. 8, 61) and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree (No. 328 of Dec. 30, 61).

Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act

Seoul Metropolitan Area Industrial Company

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 66Gu58 delivered on June 30, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below on November 8, 1964, when the plaintiff company purchased all of its real estate and properties including movable property from the non-party company in Seoul Remote Industrial Complex to the non-party company 7,943,430 won and agreed to accept the debt of the non-party company against the non-party company to pay it with the purchase price to the above company. Accordingly, the plaintiff has produced the same kind of remote areas using the above company's real estate, movable property and manufacturing remote areas and private opinion. On the other hand, the above company did not have any property to liquidate after dissolution on March 25, 1965. The plaintiff purchased other properties than the above acquired assets and used them for its business and expanded its business to operate the business outside the above Seoul Remote Industrial Complex, and even if the plaintiff and the non-party company operated the business outside the above business, it shall be deemed that the non-party company and the non-party company were liable to pay the additional tax under Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act.

The second ground for appeal is examined.

According to Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act, when the assets of the transferor are insufficient to collect national taxes, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears that will be imposed on the transferor or transferor in connection with the business, the transferor's secondary tax liability is imposed on the transferor's assets. According to Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the transfer under Article 16 of the same Act refers to the transfer of all of the business to another person, and the transferee refers to the transfer of all of the business to the same item or a similar item of business at the same place as the transferor, and the transferee agrees to purchase all of his/her real estate and movable property from the Seoul Remote Industrial Co., Ltd. and pay the above non-party company's debts to the bank to the above company with the above purchase price. Accordingly, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same kind of assets including the real estate and movable property from the Seoul Remote Industrial Co., Ltd. and to pay the above non-party company to the above company with the above purchase price. In this case, the above company did not have any property to be dissolved and liquidated.

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

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court