Fraudulent Act

In the case of only cancellation of taxation, there is a taxation claim.

Article 30 (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)

원심판결 중 피고 양〇〇에 대한 매매예약 취소청구에 관한 부분을 제외한 나머지 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.

The remaining appeals are dismissed.

1. As to the part on the claim for cancellation of the pre-sale promise against Defendant Yang ○○○

Although the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the entire judgment of the court below, there is no allegation in the grounds of appeal as to the rejection of the lawsuit against the Defendant Yang-○○ in the judgment below regarding the claim for cancellation of trade reservation.

2. As to the remainder of the claim except for the cancellation of a pre-sale promise against Defendant Yang ○○○

The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s liability to pay global income tax and additional dues for 2001 and the total amount of 97,250,890 won for 201 and 2002, each of which belongs to 2002, and its additional dues, on June 24, 2003, on which the ○○○○○○○○○○ Tax Office, issued a notice to the ○○○○○○○○○ Tax Office’s general partner, who was the general partner of ○○○○○ Construction Construction (hereinafter “○○○○○○ Construction”). However, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s liability to pay global income tax and additional dues for 201 and the total amount of 5,275,950 won for 201, which were on December 31, 2001, on the ground that it was difficult to view that the general partner’s general partner’s liability to pay taxes and additional dues were listed in the name of ○○ Construction Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○ Construction”).

However, we cannot accept the above decision of the court below for the following reasons.

As determined by the court below, if ○○○ was merely a general partner in the form of ○○ Construction and did not actually received wages from ○○ Construction or ○○ Construction, the second taxpayer designation disposition or the second global income and disposition with respect to ○○○○○○ is illegal. However, it cannot be deemed invalid because the defect cannot be deemed as serious and obvious, and only can it be cancelled. If the above taxation disposition, etc. can be cancelled as above, it cannot be deemed that there exists no tax claim by denying the validity of such disposition in civil procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da20179, Aug. 20, 199). Further, if it is clear that ○○○○ was established prior to the date of the donation in this case, it is possible that ○○○○○’s global income tax claim for 2002 and 201 and 202 corporate tax on corporate tax for 20 years and 200 of value-added tax, and it is probable that the above taxation claim is established in the future.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's above claims on the ground that there is no preserved claim of this case on the ground of its stated reasoning. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of taxation, and it is clear that such illegality affected the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below, excluding the part on the claim for revocation of purchase and sale reservation against Defendant Yang ○○, is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of