Gyeongsung (Attorney Cho Jae-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant)

Head of Gwangju District Tax Office

may 16, 1985

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition of imposing corporate tax of June 8, 1982 against the plaintiff 18,628,178, the additional dues of 1,862,817, the defense tax of 2,778,176, the additional dues of 277,817, the corporate tax of 704,094, the additional dues of 70,409, the defense tax of 112,654, the additional dues of 112,654, the additional dues of 11,265, the additional dues of 1981, the value-added tax of 3,002,976, the additional dues of 30,297, the additional dues of 1980 shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposing the corporate tax of 704,094, the additional dues of 112,654, the additional dues of 11,265, respectively.

1. On July 8, 1982, the defendant did not dispute between the plaintiff on June 1982, the non-party 18,628,178 corporate tax amount of the non-party 1,862,817, the defense tax amount of 2,77,817, the additional dues of 277,817,817, the corporate tax amount of 704,094, the additional dues of 70,409, the defense tax amount of 112,654, the additional dues of 112,654, the additional dues of 3,02,976, the additional dues of 1981, the additional dues of 265 (the additional dues of 1981), the non-party 29, the non-party 29, the non-party 329, the taxpayer of the above national tax payment liability of 30,297.

2. As of December 31, 1980, the plaintiff alleged that the above disposition of this case was unlawful because the plaintiff was not an oligopolistic shareholder of the above non-party company. Thus, considering the above 5% of the above 1980 company's oligopolistic shareholder, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 8, 13 (each decision), Gap evidence 2 and 4 (each decision), the record verification conducted on April 18, 1983, the part of the witness rights and the party member's testimony conducted on the same 90% of the above 190 company's shares were transferred to the non-party company's 20th of the above 5th of the above 1975 company's 10th of the above 5th of the 1975 company's 10th of the above 5th of the 1975 company's 19th of the above 5th of the 190 company's 19th of the above 10th of the above 10th of the shares issued shares.

The plaintiff asserted that the non-party company's disposition of corporate tax, etc. was unlawful on the premise that the non-party company had income in the year 1980 and the non-party company did not conduct its business activities properly since April 1981 and did not conduct its business activities entirely since that time.

According to the provisions of Article 32 of the Corporate Tax Act, if a domestic corporation fails to report the tax base amount and amount of tax, the government shall determine the tax base and amount of tax. Although there are errors in the contents of its return, if it is impossible to calculate the amount of income by the account books or other documentary evidence for the reasons as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it may be estimated. As such, the non-party company, the original taxpayer, is also liable to pay additional tax by calculating the amount of income of the non-party 2-1 through 10, subparagraph 3-1 through 11, subparagraph 9-1 through 4, subparagraph 10, subparagraph 12-1 through 3, subparagraph 12-1, and subparagraph 1 of the above Article 32-1 of the Corporate Tax Act, and by calculating the amount of tax base based on the remaining amount of income of the non-party 7-1, the amount of tax base after deducting the amount of tax base and the amount of tax base calculated based on the remaining amount of income of the non-party 1980-5, the amount of tax base amount of tax base calculated based on the remaining amount of tax base amount.

In order for oligopolistic shareholders to be liable for the second taxpayer to pay the tax amount in arrears, the plaintiff must pay the tax amount in arrears to the corporation, which is the original taxpayer, even if the assets of the non-party company are insufficient to cover the expenses for disposition on default of additional dues imposed or to be paid by the corporation. In this case, the plaintiff asserted that the designation of the second taxpayer against the plaintiff was illegal without investigating the property of the non-party company, and that notification of the tax payment was made by the non-party company. Thus, according to each of the evidence No. 5-1, No. 2, No. 6, and No. 7, the non-party company's non-party company's business closure status around April 1981, it can be acknowledged as insolvent because all of the assets, such as the products, fixed assets, rental deposits, etc., are appropriated for the liquidation of overdue wages

Finally, as the plaintiff designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer and did not state the grounds for calculation of the tax amount in the notice of tax payment against the non-party corporation, the plaintiff's disposition is unlawful. Thus, according to Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the head of the tax office must notify the non-party corporation by the notice of tax payment stating the year of taxation of national tax, additional dues or disposition fee for arrears, the tax item, the tax amount, the basis for calculation thereof, the payment period, the place of payment, the amount to be collected from the second taxpayer, the basis for calculation of the tax amount, and other necessary matters. The notice of tax payment requires the plaintiff to attach a notice of tax payment stating the basis for calculation of the above tax amount. According to the notice of tax payment of this case attached to the evidence No. 1-1 (written request) of this case (the plaintiff is the person who received the tax amount). The statement of tax payment means the above notice of tax payment, and there are no grounds for calculation of the tax amount.

3. If so, the disposition of this case that the plaintiff designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer of the above non-party company is legitimate. The plaintiff's claim for this case is dismissed without merit, and the costs of this case are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

June 13, 1985

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)