(a) Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act;

B. Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act shall not apply or apply mutatis mutandis to the collection of customs duties.

A. As to the collection of national taxes, Article 16 of the former National Tax Collection Act (Act No. 819 of Dec. 8, 61) cannot be deemed to apply or mutatis mutandis.

B. The secondary tax liability of a business transferee under Article 16 of the former National Tax Collection Act (Act No. 819, Dec. 8, 612) is based on the fact that the business transferee takes over all of the business from the transferee and operates the same kind of business or similar items of business at the same place, and thus, the transferee of the business is obliged to pay the secondary tax liability of the transferee with respect to the national tax to be paid by the transferor in relation to the business.

Article 2 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 23 of the Customs Act

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

Head of Daegu Customs Office

Daegu High Court Decision 71Gu35 delivered on February 2, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal;

According to the provisions of Article 1 of the National Tax Collection Act, the purpose of this Act is to secure the revenue of national taxes by stipulating matters necessary for the collection of national taxes. Under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, the term "national taxes" refers to taxes imposed by the State, other than customs duties and money, and Article 2 of the same Act provides that matters provided for in this Act and those provided for in other Acts shall be governed by the provisions of the Act. Thus, even though national taxes are a kind of national taxes, it can be seen that in principle, legal regulations are different from those of other general national taxes in light of the special characteristics of the national taxes, and Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that if the amount of national taxes, additional dues and disposition fee for arrears imposed on or to the transferor is insufficient to collect from the transferor, the transferee shall be deemed to have the secondary tax liability, and Article 5 Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the transferor shall be deemed to have transferred the same item of business to the transferee or transferee at the same place as the same type of business.

Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Article 3, 4, and 6 of the Customs Act, it is clear that customs duties are not the so-called "person taxes or acts taxes, but the large and occasional taxes, and depending on their special characteristics, there are several special provisions in imposing and collecting customs duties (Article 6, 20, 22, etc. of the Customs Act). However, according to Article 23 of the Customs Act, the collection of customs duties that do not provide security or are short of the collected amount is governed by the National Tax Collection Act, except as otherwise provided in this Act. However, the term "collection in light of its contents and purpose" is interpreted as only the collection procedure, and in addition, it is difficult to view that Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act applies or applies mutatis mutandis to the case of this case, such as the theory of the lawsuit.

Therefore, in the case of this case, the conclusion of the original judgment that the Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act is not applicable is just, and there is no argument to appeal against the conflicting views.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)