Cho High-depth201Gu682 (201.08)

Tax claims that have arisen as a cause after the declaration of bankruptcy and do not arise with respect to the bankrupt estate shall not constitute estate claims.

In principle, claims that can be collected under the National Tax Collection Act are estate claims, but exceptionally, claims that may arise after bankruptcy is declared bankrupt are estate claims only for claims that accrue to the bankruptcy estate, and in the case of tax claims, whether the grounds arise after the declaration of bankruptcy is determined as whether the taxation requirements prescribed by the Act are satisfied after the declaration of bankruptcy.

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 473 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax;

The trustee in bankruptcy of the AAAur Telecom Corporation

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

March 23, 2012

April 25, 2012

1. The imposition of each value-added tax on the plaintiff (the second taxpayer) among the attached Table 1, which the defendant attached to the plaintiff, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 3, Eul evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

Since the taxation claim of this case is not related to the bankrupt estate due to the cause after the declaration of bankruptcy, it cannot be an estate claim. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. Related statutes;

Attached 2 is as shown in the "related Acts and subordinate statutes".

4. Determination

A. According to Article 473 subparag. 2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "the Debtor Rehabilitation Act"), a claim that can be collected pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act or the Framework Act on Local Taxes (including a claim that can be collected according to the example of collecting the national tax and its collection priority takes precedence over the general bankruptcy claims, but excluding subordinate bankruptcy claims provided for in Article 446), as a matter of principle, claims arising after bankruptcy is exceptionally established as estate claims only for the bankruptcy estate. In the case of tax claims, whether the grounds arise after the declaration of bankruptcy meet the taxation requirements prescribed in the Act after the declaration of bankruptcy, and the taxation claims are established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da71904, Jun. 9, 2005). According to Article 39 subparag. 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 1124, Dec. 31, 2011).

B. In light of the fact that Article 473 subparagraph 2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act divided the causes of a claim that may be collected under the National Tax Collection Act into the grounds before and after the declaration of bankruptcy, which occurred after the declaration of bankruptcy, the estate claim is entirely deemed the estate claim, and that the causes arising after the declaration of bankruptcy are the estate claim. In light of the fact that the estate claim provided under Article 473 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act is for the common interest of the bankruptcy creditors, most of the estate claims are for the joint interest of the bankruptcy creditors, it is reasonable to view that the bankruptcy trustee is subject to imposition and collection by taking into account the acts done for the common interest of the bankruptcy creditors such as the ownership of the assets belonging to the bankruptcy estate, the quantity and disposal of the assets, and the act of gaining profits using the assets, etc., which are performed for the benefit of the bankruptcy creditors. As seen earlier, the main reason for the taxation claim of this case is that (i) the additional tax liability of the non-party company was established as of the date on which the bankruptcy trustee was declared, and (ii) the oligopolistic shareholder is not subject to the bankruptcy trustee.

The argument is with merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.