(a) Detailed time for determining corporate tax liability by estimation;

B. Whether a notice of tax payment to the secondary taxpayer is appropriate without any taxation by the principal taxpayer (negative)

(a) If the tax office did not notify the company of the tax base determined by the method of estimated determination, the corporate tax liability of the company is not specifically determined;

B. Although a notice of payment to the secondary taxpayer is formally independent tax assessment, it has the nature as a disposition in the collection procedure of the main tax liability finalized by a tax assessment, etc., in order to issue a notice of payment to the secondary taxpayer, it is necessary to complete the procedure to determine its specific tax liability by imposing a tax on the main taxpayer as a prior requirement, and the secondary taxpayer’s notice of payment to the secondary taxpayer is unlawful without going through the procedure of tax assessment, etc. against the main taxpayer.

(a) Article 22 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 10-2 of its Enforcement Decree, Article 32 and Article 37 of the Corporate Tax Act. Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Head of the Cleanness Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu89 delivered on February 11, 1982

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiffs is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of litigation incurred by the defendant's appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

(1) First, we examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal.

Article 21 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the tax base and the amount of the corporate tax of the non-party company shall be determined by the non-party company's 2 as of March 19, 1979 without any notification of the tax payment of corporate tax and defense tax for the business year belonging to the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company"). The court below determined that the non-party company had secondary tax liability for the above corporate tax of the non-party company as of March 19, 1979 and notified the plaintiffs of the notice of the payment under the provisions of Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and determined that the non-party company's property "it is imposed or payable to the corporation," and the non-party company is not obligated to pay national tax for the shortage as of the date of establishment of the liability to pay national tax (see Article 21 (1) 1 of the same Act, and the non-party company is not obligated to pay the corporate tax for the pertinent business year after the determination of the above amount of the non-party company's tax base.

In addition, the secondary tax liability system stipulated in the Framework Act on National Taxes is a secondary tax liability system for a person who has a certain relationship, in cases where the amount of tax to be collected is deemed to be insufficient even after a disposition on default is taken on the property of the person liable for tax payment with regard to the determined amount of tax, on the premise that the principal taxpayer’s tax liability has been specifically determined by a tax disposition, etc. Therefore, the secondary tax liability for the secondary taxpayer has infinite and complementary nature in relation to the main tax liability, and the payment notice for the secondary taxpayer has the nature as a single disposition under the collection procedure of the main tax liability determined by a tax disposition, etc., although the payment notice for the secondary taxpayer has a formal independent tax assessment, the payment notice for the secondary taxpayer has the nature as a single disposition under the collection procedure of the main tax liability. Therefore, in order to issue a payment notice for the secondary taxpayer, first of all, it is illegal that a payment notice for the secondary taxpayer has been issued without going through

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the disposition of the second duty payment notice against the plaintiffs, which did not go through the taxation procedure of corporate tax in business year 1975 against the non-party company, and omitted the judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs on this point.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on September 6, 1976, the court below confirmed that the plaintiffs transferred 85,050 shares issued by the above non-party company, including the plaintiffs' shares, to the non-party on Sep. 6, 1976, and it is clear that the non-party company was not an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company at the time of December 31 of the same year, which is the end of the business year when the national tax liability for the portion attributable to the business year was established on Sep. 1976. Thus, the court below determined that the non-party company's disposition of notice of payment of the second tax liability imposed by the defendant on the non-party company as to the non-party company's national tax in arrears was unlawful. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and

(3) Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court, which is the court below, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)