[1] Whether a notice of tax payment to one of the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment under the Local Tax Act takes effect upon other persons who are jointly and severally liable for tax payment (negative)

[2] The meaning of "payment period" under Article 31 (2) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 1991) in the principal tax of local tax, such as acquisition tax and registration tax, is the meaning of "payment period"

[3] The meaning of "payment deadline" under Article 31 (2) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 1991), which is the basis for establishing a priority relationship with claims secured by a local tax and claims secured by a mortgage, etc.

[1] The mutual solidarity relationship between the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment is not related to the performance of the tax obligation already determined, but it is not related to the determination of the tax obligation itself. Even if the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment are jointly and severally liable for tax payment, each specific tax obligation needs to be individually determined and thus, a notification of disposition of imposition, which is a requirement for establishing specific tax liability, must be given to each person individually liable for tax payment. Therefore, even if a tax payment notice was given to one of the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment, it cannot be said that the notification of the disposition of imposition to the other persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment takes effect, and it can only take effect upon the other persons jointly and severally liable for tax

[2] Under Article 31 (2) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 1991), "payment deadline" refers to the statutory payment period stipulated in the tax law in local tax in the method of tax return such as acquisition tax and registration tax, and the statutory payment period of acquisition tax shall be 30 days from the date of acquisition of real estate, and the statutory payment period of registration tax shall be the date of registration of the real estate.

[3] Under the Local Tax Act, an additional tax shall be collected in addition to the tax amount calculated under the same Act in order to ensure the faithful performance of the obligation under the Local Tax Act, and even if the additional tax is imposed and collected under the name of the principal tax, its nature is in essence different from the principal tax. Thus, in accordance with Article 31(2)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 191), it shall be based on the "payment deadline of additional tax in order to determine the priority relationship with claims secured by claims on additional tax and mortgage, etc." Thus, according to Articles 120 and 121 of the former Local Tax Act, if a taxpayer fails to file a voluntary declaration within 30 days from the date of acquisition of the object of taxation or the amount of tax returned and collected falls short of the statutory amount of tax, it shall be deemed that the payment deadline of additional tax is determined at the time of imposition and collection.

[1] Article 18(3) of the Local Tax Act, Article 416 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 31(2)3, 120, and 124 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 191) / [3] Articles 31(2)3, 120, and 121 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 191)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Nu81 delivered on October 22, 1985 (Gong1985, 1563), Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11 delivered on May 10, 198 (Gong1988, 964), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2077 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994, 1734) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 84Nu201 delivered on September 25, 1984 (Gong1984, 1741), Supreme Court Decision 93Da47349 delivered on January 25, 1994 (Gong194, 806), Supreme Court Decision 94Da53639 delivered on May 23, 1995 (Gong194, 295)

Busan District Court Decision 201Na1448 decided May 1, 201

Busan Metropolitan City Shipping Daegu

Busan High Court Decision 95Na13647 delivered on June 20, 1996

Of the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court below, the amount of dividends on the acquisition tax, additional tax, registration tax, etc. of the gold farm Co., Ltd. and the additional tax on the gold farm housing shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to Busan High Court. The remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal shall

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

A. On the first ground for appeal

Inasmuch as mutual solidarity relationship between persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment is not related to the performance of tax obligations already determined, each person’s specific tax liability needs to be individually determined even if the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment. Therefore, each person jointly and severally liable for tax payment must be notified of a disposition of imposition, which is a requirement for establishing specific tax liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu81, Oct. 22, 1985; 94Nu207, May 10, 1994; etc.). Therefore, even if a person jointly and severally liable for tax payment served a tax payment notice as to one of the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment, it cannot be said that the other persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment has been notified of the disposition of imposition. However, it can only be said that the effect of the notification of collection to other persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment under Article 416 of the Civil Act, which

Therefore, even in the case of this case, even though the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 1 corporation are jointly and severally liable for the acquisition tax, its additional tax, registration tax, etc. on co-owned land of this case, where the gold residential house and gold residential house of this case and the tax amount returned and paid with respect to these local taxes fall short of the statutory calculated tax amount and thus a tax payment notice is served, if the gold residential house of this case and gold residential house of this case were to be collected by the payment notice of the shortage of tax amount, the notification of the imposition disposition as to the gold residential house of this case may not take effect by the payment notice of insufficient tax amount for the gold residential house of this case, and unless the imposition notice becomes effective by being given separate notice of tax disposition to the gold residential house of this case

Nevertheless, the court below held that the court below may request the issuance of a shortage of tax payment notice in the procedure of the voluntary auction of this case on the real estate owned by Geum Jong-dong Co., Ltd. under the premise that the person liable for joint and several tax payment merely with the notice of payment of shortage for the payment of shortage for the payment of gold price Co., Ltd. was liable to pay shortage for the co-owned land of this case. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on mutual solidarity relations and the determination of specific liability for tax payment, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

The ground of appeal on this point is with merit.

B. On the second ground for appeal

Article 31 (2) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 1991; hereinafter the same), and Article 31 (2) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 1991; hereinafter the same), "payment deadline" refers to the statutory payment deadline stipulated by tax law in local tax in the method of tax return such as acquisition tax and registration tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da47349, Jan. 25, 1994; 94Da53365, May 23, 1995). Under the relevant provisions of the former Local Tax Act, the statutory payment deadline of acquisition tax of this case means 30 days from the date of acquisition of real estate subject to taxation of acquisition tax, and the statutory payment deadline of this case is the date of registration on the real estate.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff's claim secured by the right to collateral security, which was established after the statutory deadline for payment of the acquisition tax and registration tax of this case, cannot be superior to the principal tax of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the "payment deadline" under Article 31 (2) 3 of the former Local Tax Act.

The ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

C. On the third ground for appeal

The additional tax under the Local Tax Act is the amount to be collected in addition to the tax amount calculated under the same Act in order to ensure the faithful performance of the obligation under the Local Tax Act, and even if the additional tax is imposed and collected as the principal tax, its nature is different in essence from the principal tax. Thus, in determining the priority relationship with the obligation secured by a claim for additional tax and a mortgage, etc. under Article 31(2)3 of the former Local Tax Act, the additional tax shall be based on the "payment period itself". In accordance with Articles 120 and 121 of the former Local Tax Act, if a taxpayer fails to make a voluntary return and payment within 30 days from the date of acquisition of the object of taxation or the amount of tax returned and collected falls short of the statutory amount of tax, it is reasonable to deem that the payment period of additional tax is the time limit for payment determined at the time of such notice.

Nevertheless, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle on the "payment deadline of additional tax" if the "payment deadline of additional tax" is the 30th day from the date of acquisition of the main tax.

The ground of appeal on this point is with merit.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

In light of the expression of the law, Article 31(2)3 of the former Local Tax Act provides that "the time limit for payment of additional dues shall be the basis for determining the priority relationship of claims secured by additional dues and mortgages."

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the additional claim of this case arising after the establishment date of the right to collateral security cannot be preferred than the secured claim of the right to collateral security, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the priority of the additional claim under Article 31 (2) 3 of the former Local Tax Act.

The ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

3. Therefore, of the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court below, the part on the dividend amount for the acquisition tax, its additional tax, registration tax, etc., and the additional tax on the gold farm housing shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissal of appeal shall be borne by each losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)