(a) Method of demanding the correction of the National Tax Tribunal;

B. The meaning of the tax amount to be paid for the secondary tax liability under Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The request for correction of the applicant for a request for review by the National Tax Tribunal is sufficient because there is no special provision on the procedure, so it is sufficient to inform the other party of the purport of the request for correction by verbal or telephone, etc. in accordance with the principle of arrival. Thus, if the employee in charge of the National Tax Tribunal notified the applicant for a request for correction orally to the person in charge of the applicant company, this would be a legitimate request for correction, and the issue of whether the written request for correction was served

2. The term “tax amount to be imposed on the secondary tax liability as prescribed in Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes” means the national tax already imposed on the transferor at the time of the transfer of the business, which is generated in operating the business.

Articles 41, 63, and 81 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Decision 74Nu269 Delivered on July 11, 1978

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Attorney Gyeong-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu513 delivered on February 26, 1980

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of an appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below against the plaintiff's appeal is a process of consultation on the plaintiff's acquisition of goods and property as it refers to the disposal of goods to another person on condition of acquiring debts due to business difficulties. At the same time, the plaintiff added the Maritime Uniform Co., Ltd.'s business to the Maritime Uniform Co., Ltd.'s factory site, machinery and equipment as well as the sales business, and transferred its trade name to the factory location of the Maritime Uniform Co., Ltd., and entered into a sales contract with the above Maritime Uniform Co., Ltd.'s factory site, and purchased the above Maritime Uniform Co., Ltd.'s land, machinery and accessory equipment as well as the sales contract with the above Maritime Uniform Co., Ltd.'s factory site, and purchased the sales contract with the above Maritime Uniform Co., Ltd.'s company's land site, machinery and accessory equipment, and the sales contract with the above Maritime Uniform Co., Ltd.'s claim against the Industrial Bank of Korea, which received 120,160,363 won in arrears.

As stated in the above holding, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff is a comprehensive succession of business by taking over most of the liabilities for all business facilities, such as the site, factory, machinery, apparatus, etc., and moving its head office to the place and adding the same type of business to the above non-party company's business, which had no previous category of business, and thus, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff is a comprehensive succession of business shall not be adopted.

2. As to the defendant's appeal

(A) In examining the case of a request for a trial, the National Tax Tribunal may request the applicant for a review at any time during the period for the decision under Articles 81 and 63 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Since there is no special provision regarding the procedure, the purport of the request for correction is sufficient to be known to the other party by oral or telephone, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 79Nu22 delivered on April 10, 1979). Accordingly, according to the above opinion of the court below, the decision of the National Tax Tribunal decided that the request for correction was made within the period for the decision of this case by the National Tax Tribunal to the plaintiff on August 31, 1978, which was within the period for the decision of this case, and the decision that the request for correction was made legitimate by recognizing the fact that the non-party, who is the person in charge of the plaintiff company, through the employee in charge of the plaintiff company, notified the request for correction orally through the employee in charge, and then whether the written request for correction was served to the plaintiff cannot be adopted since

(B) Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that if there is a shortage of national taxes, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears with respect to the pertinent business imposed on or to be paid by the transferor in the event of transfer of business by the transferor, the transferee of the business, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, shall be liable for the secondary tax liability for the shortage. This purport is to the same effect as Article 16 of the former National Tax Collection Act (Act No. 819). It is interpreted that the corporate tax and defense tax in the disposition of this case are not national taxes imposed on the transferor at the time of the transfer of business, but they should be taxes generated in the course of operating the business (see Supreme Court Decision 74Nu269 delivered on July 11, 198). Thus, it is clear that it is a taxation on the transfer of assets as seen above, and therefore, it is not imposed on the transferor at the time of transfer or acquisition, and it is not related to the transferor's business.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below ordering the cancellation of the disposition of imposition is justifiable, and it cannot be said that there is a misapprehension of legal principles like the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice)