The standard for determining whether a tax claim constitutes a rehabilitation claim as “property claim arising from the cause prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures” under Article 118 of the former Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and in cases where a notice of change in the amount of income is served on a corporation after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures by the tax authority as the representative bonus for the outflow of the corporation, the disposal of the amount of income as a bonus and the notice of change in the amount of income

Article 118 of the former Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (amended by Act No. 9804 of Oct. 21, 2009)

Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20959 Decided January 28, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 450)

Administrator of the company subject to the rehabilitation company (Law Firm Shin, Attorneys Oh Jeong-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Secretary of the Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 2012Nu295 decided September 14, 2012

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Whether a tax claim constitutes a rehabilitation claim under Article 118 of the former Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (amended by Act No. 9804, Oct. 21, 2009; hereinafter "the Debtor Rehabilitation Act"), is determined on the basis of whether the taxation requirements prescribed by the Act have been met before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures and the tax claim has been established. In cases where the tax authority disposes of the corporation's outflow from the company as a representative and notifies of the change in the amount of income, the obligation to pay the tax on the pro rata earned income tax is established at the time when the notice of change in the amount of income has been served. Thus, if the notice of change in the amount of income was served after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures for the relevant corporation, the obligation to pay the tax on pro rata earned income tax is established at the time when the notice of change in amount of income is served, and it does not constitute a rehabilitation claim under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20959, Jan. 28, 2010

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is revealed that the notice of change in the amount of income of this case given on the ground that the representative director of the company of this case leaked the claim for the amount of income other than the company of this case after the decision was made to commence the rehabilitation procedure for the company of this case. In light of the above legal principles, the claim for withholding income tax of this case does not constitute a rehabilitation claim. Therefore, although the reasoning of the judgment below is somewhat inappropriate, the decision of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the above claim constitutes a rehabilitation claim is just

In addition, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion contrary to the relevant legal principles and records, even if there is a minor error in the indication of the notice of change in the income amount of this case as long as the person authorized to receive it received it, it cannot be said that the notice of change in the income amount of this case cannot be deemed null and void. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below's determination is acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)