1. Scope of taxes for which a business transferee becomes liable for secondary tax payment;

2. Effect of a seizure disposition which has been conducted without a demand letter or a request for provision of security;

1. The taxes that the transferee is liable to pay secondary taxes pursuant to the provisions of Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be limited to the taxes that are already imposed on the transferor at the time of the transfer of the business; and

2. The attachment disposition against the real estate as a disposition for arrears is unlawful without a demand letter under Article 24(1)1 and (2) of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 3661 of Dec. 19, 1983) or a request for the provision of security against the taxpayer.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 24(1)1 and (2) of the National Tax Collection Act (Law No. 2680)

November 22, 1983, 83Nu63 (Gong720, 120) decided December 13, 1983, 83Nu45 decided January 24, 1984, 83Nu527 decided September 25, 1984, 84Nu107 decided January 22, 1985 (Gong740No1739), 84Nu644 decided January 22, 1985 (Gong7488)

Plaintiff

Head of Ulsan District Office

The disposition by the Defendant, on January 15, 1982, on the part of the non-party corporation's non-party corporation's occasional corporate tax amounting to 10,604,500 won, defense tax amounting to 1,805,030 won, and value-added tax amounting to 12,243,789 won, imposed on the plaintiffs, and the attachment disposition by the defendant on the real estate stated in the attached list on December 21, 1981, shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

On January 15, 1982, the Defendant comprehensively determined the Plaintiff’s 10,60,50 won of corporate tax for the year 1982, the 1,805,030 won of the defense tax, and the 12,243,789 won of the value-added tax for the second taxpayer on the same day, and imposed the above tax amount on the Plaintiff on the 12,243,789, and imposed the attachment disposition on the 1,21, 300, the 1, 2, 3-1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 1, 12-1, 12-1, 22-14 of the above corporate tax for the above 10-1, 198, and the 10-1, 198-1, 30-1, 198, 30-1, 198, 30-1, 198, respectively.

On the other hand, if the business transferee is to be charged with secondary tax liability for the tax on the business of the transferor pursuant to Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the tax is imposed on the transferor at the time of the transfer of the business, and the tax imposed on the transferor after the transfer of the business cannot be charged with secondary tax liability for it to the transferee even though it was incurred in the business of the transferor. According to the facts acknowledged above, the transferee of the business from the non-party company on August 31, 1980 and the date when the defendant imposed and collected the corporate tax, etc. on the non-party company on the non-party company on January 4, 1982, it is clear that the plaintiff could not be charged with secondary tax liability for each tax, such as the above corporate tax, etc. on the non-party company. Accordingly, the taxation disposition of this case against the plaintiff following the designation of the non-party company is unlawful, and the above seizure disposition against the above real estate by the defendant as a disposition of arrears against the above tax is unlawful without going through the procedure under Article 24 (1) 1).

Therefore, on the premise that the plaintiff bears the secondary tax liability for each of the above taxes of the non-party company, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of each of the above dispositions is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the defendant's burden that the plaintiff bears the secondary tax liability.

Judge Seo-dae (Presiding Judge)