Recognition of collection money and obligation to pay damages for delay due to seizure of claims

It is insufficient to recognize the fact of the name lending with the delinquent corporation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so the collection amount under Article 41 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act and the obligation to pay damages for delay is recognized due to the seizure of bonds.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2018 Ghana 12222 Collections

Korea

aa

August 22, 2019

October 17, 2019

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 184,748,390 won with 15% interest per annum from January 8, 2019 to May 31, 2019, and 12% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s taxation claim against kkk

bb as of the filing of the instant lawsuit, 15 casesx members, including value-added tax, are in arrears.

(b) Existence of sales claims held by the delinquent corporation against the defendant;

1) A entered into a service contract with cC on August 4, 2014 with a view to carrying out the work of constructing a new regional housing association apartment.

2) A A entered into a sales agency contract with a delinquent corporation on November 2014 with the purport that the delinquent corporation will be entrusted with sales agency services for the recruitment, etc. of its members, and that it will pay in return for the payment of the agency fees for the sales agency services (hereinafter referred to as “the claim for the payment of the agency fees for the sales agency with a delinquent corporation”).

3) After that, as the executor of the business of constructing the apartment of the above regional housing association was changed from Aa to the defendant, the contract was made on December 8, 2014, and accordingly, the defendant succeeded to the rights and obligations of Aa in a lump sum.

4) In relation to the sales commission for the sales agency service, a delinquent corporation issued a sales tax invoice with the purchaser as the defendant (the supply price of each tax invoice shall be the xxxxxxxx number number number number on December 22, 2014, xxx number number number on February 11, 2015, and xxxx number number number number on March 10, 2015).

(c) Seizure and notification of claims against the instant claims under the National Tax Collection Act;

DD, around June 23, 2015, April 12, 2016, and April 12, 2018, in accordance with the National Tax Collection Act, seized the amount of national taxes in arrears among the bonds in this case under the National Tax Collection Act and notified the Defendant of such fact.

2. The assertion and judgment

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, who subrogated to the delinquent corporation pursuant to Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act by seizing the instant bonds, the amount of national taxes in arrears x members of the delinquent corporation and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings and the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019) from January 8, 2019 to May 31, 2019, to the day of full payment, barring special circumstances.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that he only lent the name in the name of the defendant or aa at the time of entering into a sales agency contract with the delinquent corporation (the actual contractual party) and that he does not bear obligations with respect to the claim of this case. However, the evidence alone submitted by the defendant is insufficient to recognize the fact of the name lending by the defendant, and the defendant's assertion is difficult to accept, since there

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