in the case of substantially succeeding the business, the person shall be the comprehensive successor.

As the plaintiff takes over all business facilities and rights and obligations from the non-party company to carry on the same business as that of the non-party company, it constitutes a comprehensive successor.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The defendant revoked on October 27, 1995 the disposition of imposition of Class A earned income tax (the amount corresponding to the year 1989) 20,907,380 won, Class A earned income tax (the amount corresponding to the year 1990), Class A earned income tax (the amount corresponding to the year 1990), value-added tax 9,978,030 won, value-added tax for the year 192, value-added tax for the year 193 83,753,560 won, and value-added tax for the year 193 83,753,560 won and value-added tax for the year 194 5,596,430 won.

1. Details of the instant disposition

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 4-1 to 7, Eul evidence 2-1 to 3, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 14-1 to 3, Eul evidence 15-17, Eul evidence 15-1 and 2.

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on July 21, 1993 with its business purposes such as special trucking transport business, ship agency business, export and import cargo, container transport and storage business, etc.

나. 피고는 소외 ㅇㅇ주식회사에 대하여 별표 1 기재 내역과 같이 원천징수 갑종근로소득세 및 부가가치세를 부과・고지(이하 이 사건 원처분이라 한다)하였다.

C. However, as the above non-party company failed to pay the amount stated in the principal tax column in attached Table 2 among Class A earned income tax and value added tax, the defendant designated the plaintiff as the second taxpayer on the ground that the plaintiff comprehensively acquired all of the business of the non-party company, and imposed and notified the plaintiff on October 27, 1995 each principal tax and additional tax listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter the disposition in this case).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Whether the Defendant has the authority to impose the original disposition of this case

(1) Relevant statutes

Article 44 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place for payment of national taxes at the time of the disposition shall determine or correct the tax base and amount of national taxes, and Article 3(1) of the Act provides that this Act shall take precedence over other tax-related Acts, but if the tax-related Acts provide special provisions on Section 1 of Chapter V of this Act, it shall be governed by such tax-related Acts.

Meanwhile, Article 7 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act provides that if a withholding agent is a corporation, the place of tax payment of the income tax withheld at source shall be the place of the principal office or principal office of the corporation, and Article 4 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the place of business shall be paid at each place of business, and Article 4 (3) of the Enforcement Decree provides that the scope of the place of business shall be delegated to the Presidential Decree. The main sentence of Article 4 (1) of the same Act provides that the place of business shall be the place where the business operator or his/her employee presides at all or part of the transaction, and Article 7 (2) provides that the place of business shall be the place where the business operator installs special sales facilities for the purpose of directly selling goods produced or acquired in connection with his/her business shall be deemed the place of business, and Article 4 (3) provides that the place other than the place of business provided

(2) Determination

(A) Determination on each of the original dispositions in the instant case (No. 1 and 2 listed in attached Table 1)

위 국세기본법과 소득세법의 관계 규정에 의하면, 원천징수 소득세의 부과처분은 그 처분 당시 그 법인의 본점 또는 주사무소의 소재지를 관할하는 세무서장이 행하도록 되어 있는바, 갑제18호증, 갑제25호증의 1의 각 기재에 의하면, 위 소외회사는 특수화물자동차운송업, 선박대리점업, 국내외 화물 알선업 등을 사업목적으로 하여 1983. 5. 17.에 설립된 법인으로서, 최초의 상호는 ㅇㅇ트레일러 주식회사였으나 1984. 1. 20. ㅇㅇ기업 주식회사로, 1993. 8. 5.에는 ㅇㅇ 주식회사로 상호가 각 변경되었으며, 그 본점도 처음에는 ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ의 4이었으나 1984. 5. 7. ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ의 2로, 1988. 6. 7. ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 2가 18의 1로, 같은 해 12. 20. 다시 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ의 2로 각 이전하였다가 1990. 11. 19. ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ의 1로 이전한 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 이 사건 원처분 당시 위 소외회사의 본점은 ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동에 소재하고 있었다 할 것이어서 소득세부과처분의 관할은 피고가 아닌 ㅇㅇ세무서장에게 있다 할 것이니, 관할 없는 피고가 한 위 각 소득세부과처분은 위법하다 할 것이다.

Therefore, under the premise that each of the above disposition of imposing income tax in the original disposition in this case is legitimate, each of the disposition of imposing income tax in this case, which designated the plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer, is unlawful without examining any other point.

(B) Determination on each disposition of imposition of value-added tax (No. 3 through 5 listed in attached Table 1) in the original disposition of this case

According to the relevant provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act, the place of business which is the basis for the determination of the place of tax payment and the district tax office having jurisdiction over value-added tax shall be the place where the business operator or his/her employee permanently resides and engages in all or part of transactions, which is individually specified according to the type of business, but it is merely an example of the criteria for the place of business, and even other places may be registered at the place of business upon the application of the business operator. Thus, insofar as the place is registered at the place of business upon the application of the business operator, it can be seen as a place of business under the Value-Added Tax Act, even if it is not a place of business under each subparagraph of Article 4

앞에서 든 증거들에 의하면, 위 소외회사는 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동에 사업장을 두고 영업을 하면서 남ㅇㅇ세무서에 사업자등록(등록번호 617-81-02203)을 하였는데, 1990. 11. 19. 본점을 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동으로 이전하면서 그 사업장도 ㅇㅇ동으로 이전하였으나 사업자등록은 남ㅇㅇ세무서에 그대로 둔 사실이 인정되는바, 위 소외회사가 본점과 사업장을 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동에 두었다가 이를 모두 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동으로 이전하면서도 그 사업자등록은 남ㅇㅇ세무서에 그대로 두었다면, ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동은 위 소외회사의 신청에 의하여 사업장으로 등록된 장소라고 볼 수 있으므로, 이를 관할하는 피고가 한 이 사건 원처분이 반드시 위법하다고 볼 수는 없다 할 것이다.

B. Whether it constitutes a comprehensive succession

(1) Relevant statutes

Article 41 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that if there is a shortage of national taxes, additional dues and disposition fees for arrears with respect to the business for which the transferor becomes liable prior to the date of transfer in case of transfer and acquisition of business, the transferee of the business prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be liable to pay taxes to the extent of the value of the transferee's property, and Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the transferee of the business prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be liable to pay taxes to the extent of the value of the transferee's property, and Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the transferee of the business shall be entitled to pay taxes to the extent

(2) Facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 22, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 12-1, 12-1, and Eul evidence 19, and the whole purport of the pleading on the witness Kim-sik testimony, and some testimony of the above witness against this point is not believed.

(가) 위 소외회사는 국방부가 관리하고 있는 국유재산인 ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ의 1 토지에 대한 사용수익허가를 얻고 ㅇㅇ세관장으로부터 보세장치장설영특허를 받아 수출입화물 및 컨테이너 운송보관업 등을 영위해 오다가 1992. 12. 5. 부도를 내고 휴업상태에 들어갔는데, 그 무렵 소외 강ㅇㅇ는 위 소외회사의 대표이사인 소외 박ㅇㅇ로부터 위 소외회사의 사업을 인수하라는 제의를 받고 이를 인수하기 위하여 1993. 7. 21. 원고회사를 먼저 설립하였다.

(나) 그 후 같은 해 8. 6. 위 소외회사와 원고와의 사이에 양도양수계약이 체결되었는데, 그 주요한 내용은, 위 소외회사가 원고에게 영업권과 위 ㅇㅇ동 토지에 있는 자산 일체를 2,202,000,000원(부가가치세 별도)에 양도하되, 위 소외회사의 채권・채무는 위 소외회사의 책임 하에 처리하고 양도양수대금과 연계하여 계상할 수 없으며, 다만 금융기관에 대한 대출금채무는 원고가 대위변제하고 이를 양도양수대금에서 공제하며, 위 소외회사의 종업원이 원고회사에서 계속 근무하기를 원할 때에는 신규채용 형식으로 고용한다는 것 등이다.

(다) 그런데 원고는 1994. 5. 31. 위 소외회사 채권단의 요구에 따라 위 소외회사 및 위 소외회사의 채권단 대표와의 사이에 원고가 위 소외회사에 지급할 양수대금으로써 채권단에 대한 채무를 변제해 주기로 약정하고, 같은 날 이와는 별도로 위 소외회사와의 사이에 위 소외회사의 위 박ㅇㅇ에 대한 가수금채무, 소외 박ㅇ희에 대한 채무 등 합계 912,000,000원의 채무를 원고가 양수대금으로써 변제해 주기로 약정하였다.

(라) 그 후 원고는 위 소외회사와 공동으로 국방부에 ㅇㅇ동 토지에 관한 사용수익허가 명의변경신청을 함과 동시에 ㅇㅇ세관에 보세장치장설영특허 명의변경신청을 하였으나, 양도양수로 인한 명의변경이 허용되지 않는다는 이유로 그 신청서가 모두 반려되자, 위 소외회사의 동의하에 국방부와 ㅇㅇ세관에 국유재산사용수익허가와 보세장치장설영특허 신청을 한 결과 1994. 6. 15. 컨테이너보세장치장설영특허를, 같은 해 10월경 국유재산사용수익허가를 각 받았다.

(D) On July 194, immediately after obtaining a license for the establishment and operation of a bonded device, the Plaintiff received from the above non-party company the entire assets including 33 vehicles and transportation equipment possessed by the above non-party company at that time, and started its business since that time. The above non-party company closed its business on December 31 of the same year.

(3) Determination

Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes comprehensively succeeds to all rights and obligations concerning business. The term "the transferee succeeds to the legal status of the same degree as the transferor by taking over not only his/her business facilities but also his/her business rights and obligations, such as claims and obligations related to such business, and thereby succeeding to the legal status of the same degree as that of the transferor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1892, Aug. 28, 190). According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff takes over all human rights and obligations, such as all business facilities and obligations related to such business from the above non-party company in order to conduct the same business as the above non-party company, as well as all personal rights and obligations related to such business, and the permission for use of state property and the license for the permanent equipment establishment which are necessary for such business are formally obtained from the plaintiff company, but in substance, it can be deemed that the plaintiff has succeeded to the status of the same legal status as the above non-party company's comprehensive successor.

(c) Scope of secondary tax liability;

(1) Relevant statutes

As seen earlier, Article 41(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the transferee of a business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be liable to pay the second tax to the extent of the value of the acquired property. Article 41(2) provides that the value of the property acquired under paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Presidential Decree; Article 23(2) of the Enforcement Decree provides that the value of the property acquired under paragraph (2) of the same Article refers to the value under each of the following subparagraphs; Article 41(2) provides that the value of the property acquired under paragraph (2) of the same Article refers to the value of the property paid or to be paid by the transferee; Article 41(1)1 provides that where there is any amount paid or to be paid by the transferee to the transferor; and Article 41(2) provides that where there is no amount under subparagraphs 2 and 1, or where it is unclear

(2) Determination

(A) According to the evidence Nos. 6-4 and 13-1 of Eul evidence Nos. 6-4 and 13-1 of Eul, since the injury stated that the plaintiff paid the above non-party company the sum of KRW 241,457,887 as advance payment and the intermediate payment of KRW 150,983,597 as advance payment to the non-party company, it seems that the amount paid by the plaintiff to the above non-party company exceeds the aggregate of KRW 128,920,070 in the disposition of this case.

(나) 그러나 한편, 앞에서 든 증거들과 갑제6호증, 갑제8호증, 갑제9호증의 1 내지 47, 갑제10호증의 1 내지 3, 갑제12 내지 14호증, 갑제17호증의 1 내지 3, 갑제19호증의 1 내지 47, 갑제20호증의 1 내지 3, 갑제21호증, 갑제24호증의 1, 2, 갑제26호증의 1, 2, 갑제27호증의 1 내지 4, 갑제28호증의 1 내지 3, 을제3호증, 을제5호증의 1 내지 3, 을제6호증의 5의 각 기재와 증인 김ㅇ식, 김ㅇ해의 각 증언, 이 법원의 주식회사 ㅇㅇ상호신용금고 대표이사에 대한 사실조회결과 및 주식회사 ㅇㅇ은행 ㅇㅇ영업본부장에 대한 사실조회결과(1999. 1. 29. 접수)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 ① 앞에서 본 1994. 5. 31.자 약정에 따라 위 소외회사의 채권단과 협의한 결과, 위 소외회사에 지급할 양수대금의 일부로써 채권단에 가입한 채권자들에게 총채권액의 약 65%에 해당하는 금액을 지급하기로 하여 40명의 채권자들에게 합계 310,767,000원을 지급하고, ② 위 박ㅇㅇ와의 협의하에, 위 박ㅇㅇ가 위 소외회사의 부도 이후 체납된 국유재산사용료 등을 지급하게 할 목적으로 당시의 대표이사인 소외 박ㅇ호에게 위 소외회사의 가수금 형식으로 대여한 209,000,000원을 비롯하여 위 소외회사의 사채권자들에게 합계 888,507,368원을 지급하였으며, ③ 위 소외회사의 금융기관에 대한 채무의 대위변제로서, 신용보증기금에 62,000,000원, 대한보증보험에 60,650,000원, ㅇㅇ상호신용금고에 418,643,668원, ㅇㅇ은행에 299,916,000원 합계 841,209,668원을 변제하고, ④ 그 밖에 현대자동차써비스 주식회사에 대한 차량할부금 15,656,520원, 사단법인 수영컨테이너야드관리협회에 대한 협회비 17,089,200원, 사단법인 군인공제회 수영저장시설관리사업소에 대한 국유토지 사용료 166,203,840원 등 합계 198,949,560원을 대위변제함으로써, 1994. 7월경까지 총 2,238,770,596원의 채무를 대위변제한 사실, 그리고 원고회사의 장부상으로는 원고가 위 소외회사에 선급금 및 중도금으로 392,441,484원을 지급한 것으로 되어 있으나, 실제로는 그 당시 원고의 대표이사이던 위 강ㅇㅇ가 위 소외회사의 채무가 너무 많은 것으로 드러나자 위 돈을 위 소외회사에 지급하지 아니하고 이를 보관하면서 채무변제자금으로 사용한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고, 이에 반하는 을제5호증의 5와 이 법원의 주식회사 ㅇㅇ은행 ㅇㅇ영업본부장에 대한 사실조회결과(98. 4. 23. 접수)는 믿지 아니한다.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff paid the amount equivalent to 38,770,596 won of the acquisition price originally agreed with the above non-party company in order to pay the debt of the above non-party company on behalf of the non-party company. Thus, it constitutes a case where the plaintiff has no net assets after deducting total liabilities from total assets because more than the value of the assets acquired by the plaintiff was subrogated than the value of the assets acquired by the non-party company and there is no net assets after deducting total liabilities from total assets. Thus, it is unlawful for the defendant to designate the plaintiff as the second taxpayer and make each disposition imposing value-added tax (No. 3 through 5 listed in attached Table 2)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case (attached Tables 1 and 2) is illegal since the defendant, who does not have jurisdiction over the original disposition corresponding thereto, and each of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax (attached Tables 2, 3 through 5) is imposed even though there is no net asset acquired. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking cancellation of the disposition of this case is reasonable, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.

February 12, 1999