Whether a transferee of a business may be liable to pay secondary customs duties pursuant to Article 16 of the former National Tax Collection Act.

According to Article 3 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act, customs duties, tonnage taxes, etc. are excluded from the application of the same Act, however, the defendant's wife who applied Article 16 of the same Act to this case subject to the Customs Act and issued this case's administrative disposition is automatically null and void without any ground.

Articles 1, 3, and 16 of the former National Tax Collection Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Gu91 delivered on December 26, 1972 (Supreme Court Decision 10340 delivered on November 26, 197, Supreme Court Decision 203No32 delivered on March 32, 200, Supreme Court Decision 5(1)1871 delivered on December 26,

Korean Commercial Bank (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Head of Daegu Customs Office

January 19, 1972

As of April 7, 1971, the Defendant confirmed that the disposition that the Plaintiff designated as the secondary taxpayer on April 7, 1971 with respect to KRW 9,394,421 and its additional dues was null and void due to the Defendant’s non-performance of export obligations by the Samsan Industries Corporation.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

First of all, the defendant's main defense on the deficiency of the requirements for filing a lawsuit does not seek the cancellation of administrative disposition and seek the confirmation of invalidity thereof, which is clear by the claimant itself, so the above defense is rejected as long as it is not necessary to go through the requirements for the transfer.

Therefore, the defendant entered the main text and made an administrative disposition such as the order entry. The non-party 253, the non-party 3 corporation of Samungmo-dong, Daegu-gu, Busan-dong, the reason for such administrative disposition was, on January 10, 1968, pursuant to the recommendation of tax exemption from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy on condition of the exclusive use of the manufacture of export goods under Article 28 (1) 1 of the Customs Act, the machinery listed in the annexed list was cleared through customs clearance by the defendant on March 17, 1978, but the above company did not perform the duty of export as specified in the attached list and imposed customs duties such as the order entry on the plaintiff on August 30, 1968. Therefore, there was no dispute between the parties applying Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act because the plaintiff was the transferee of the business.

According to Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the National Tax Collection Act, even though the customs duty amount, etc. is excluded from the application of the same Act, the defendant's wife who applied the same Act to the main case subject to the Customs Act and issued the administrative disposition in this case shall be void as long as there is no basis.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of invalidity of the administrative disposition in this case is justified without any further consideration, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)