The meaning of "a person who comprehensively succeeds to all rights and obligations relating to business" under Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

In order to comprehensively succeed to all rights and duties concerning business under Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the transferee shall succeed to the legal status of the same level as the transferor is by taking over not only his/her business facilities but also his/her trade name, goodwill, intangible property rights and claims and obligations concerning his/her business from the transferor.

Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 22 of Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu134 delivered on December 13, 1983, 85Nu893 delivered on November 11, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu36 delivered on April 28, 1987

Attorney Jeon-young, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu4163 delivered on August 17, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

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 his/her business by place of business. The transferee shall succeed to the legal status of the same level as the transferor by taking over all rights and duties with respect to his/her business from the transferor as well as its trade name, goodwill, intangible property rights and claims related to his/her business, debts, etc., and all personal, physical rights and duties such as rights and duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Nu134, Dec. 13, 1983; 85Nu893, Nov. 11, 1986; 87Nu36, Apr. 28, 1987).

According to the judgment below, the court below held that the disposition of this case, which was based on the premise that the plaintiff is the transferee of the business which is subject to the secondary tax liability, is unlawful since the plaintiff did not take over only the construction license and the plaintiff did not take over the business of the non-party company since the non-party company still still continues to exist as a corporation and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the tax disposition imposed on the non-party company, even thereafter, after obtaining a construction license from the non-party Korea General Construction Corporation based on its macroficial evidence, and the non-party company did not take over the construction license by succession to the construction work that was being executed by the non-party corporation. In light of the records, the process of the evidence preparation and the fact-finding of the court below is correct and there is no error in the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and the judgment of the court below

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.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)