Whether the provisions of Article 16 or 12 of the National Tax Collection Act concerning the succession of liability to pay customs duties are applied mutatis mutandis;

Article 1 and Article 3 subparag. 1 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that national taxes under the National Tax Collection Act refer only to taxes imposed by the State, excluding customs duties and tonnage taxes, and thus, the secondary liability to pay taxes by a business transferee or a transferee of the residual property of a dissolved corporation under Article 16 or 12 of the same Act concerning secondary liability to pay taxes is clear that it is a general liability to pay taxes and additional taxes, excluding customs duties and tonnage taxes, and it is also clear that customs duties are the so-called large tax and occasional tax character. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the provisions of Article 16(b)12 of the National Tax Collection Act concerning the succession to liability to pay taxes are not applicable or applied mutatis mutandis to customs duties by nature.

Articles 1, 3, 16, and 12 of the National Tax Collection Act, Articles 3, 4, and 6 of the Customs Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Nu254 delivered on October 25, 1974

Seoul Co., Ltd.

Head of Seoul Customs Office

The Defendant’s disposition imposing KRW 2,977,520 on the Plaintiff on January 22, 1970 and KRW 297,751 is invalid.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The decision as above and the decision that the above disposition of imposition is revoked.

There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the Defendant issued a tax notice to the Plaintiff on January 22, 1970 to pay the special duty and the additional duty to the Plaintiff by January 30, 1970, by taking over the disposition of arrears from the head of Busan Customs Office pursuant to Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act before the amendment, and the secondary taxpayer of KRW 2,977,520 and the additional tax to be paid by the Seoul Clean Beverages Corporation.

According to the provisions of Article 32 of the Customs Act, since the above Corporation imports 1 local taxes to be used by Cub and Cub and Cub and to be supplied to the United States Armed Forces for the purpose of its delivery, it is not likely that the plaintiff would be exempted from the second liability to pay taxes pursuant to the provisions of Article 32 of the Customs Act, and even if it is not so, the plaintiff merely acquired part of the property from the above Corporation as payment for the purpose of its collection, or received any residual property from the dissolution of the corporation, as alleged by the defendant, it is not applicable to the second liability to pay taxes under the National Tax Collection Act for the second liability to pay taxes. Since the above 6th liability to pay taxes for the second liability to pay taxes for the second liability to pay taxes for the second liability to pay taxes for the second liability to pay taxes for the second liability to pay taxes, the defendant's special disposition of the second liability to pay taxes for the second liability to pay taxes for the second liability to pay taxes for the second liability of the corporation, which is the first liability to pay taxes for the second liability to pay taxes for the second liability of the corporation.

Therefore, the defendant's special duty and its additional duty imposition disposition based on the premise that the plaintiff is liable for the second duty payment obligation of the above construction works are imposed without any legal basis, and it is clear and clear that it is an illegal disposition without any need to make any judgment on other allegations, and the degree of such disposition is significant and obvious. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation is justified, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)