Claims for damages caused by illegal or tax evasion by shareholders and representative directors before acquiring a corporation;

The plaintiff's assertion is dismissed because there is a lack of evidence to prove that the director of the tax office well knew about the illegal or tax evasion of the shareholders and the representative director before acquiring the corporation.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 124,340,160 won with 20% interest per annum from the next day of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 6, and Eul evidence 6:

A. On January 29, 2003, the Plaintiff, a representative director of the non-party ○○ corporation, entered into a business transfer/acquisition agreement with the non-party ○○ corporation (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) that comprehensively takes over all rights, obligations, and management rights, etc. related to the business of ○○ Development in KRW 2,150,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract”). On February 4, 2003, the Plaintiff, a representative director of the non-party ○○ corporation, took over the shares of ○○ Development by way of full payment of the acquisition price and transfer of the shares of ○○ Development from ○○○○. On February 4, 2003, the Plaintiff changed the trade name of ○○ Development to ○○ Development (hereinafter referred to as “the instant company”).

B. During the conclusion of the instant contract, In preparation for the case where a debt incurred while operating ○○ Development prior to the conclusion of the instant contract, a tax unpaid, a tax evasion, etc. will be imposed on the instant company; the proviso of Article 1 of the instant contract; the time when the Plaintiff takes over the instant business after the transfer on January 29, 2003, the time when the Plaintiff took over the instant business is indicated as follows: “A” and all administrative fines and penalties, etc. incurred while operating the instant business are responsible for the instant company.

C. On the other hand, on February 23, 2004, the ○○ Tax Office received false tax invoices of KRW 300,000,000 from the company during the second taxable period of 2001 from the company, etc., and on February 24, 2004, the company notified of the change in the income amount of the company of this case, but on July 1, 2004, the company did not withhold the income tax and paid KRW 120,718,610 on July 31, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant taxation disposition”). The HGL company of this case added the amount of KRW 120,718,610,00 and the amount of KRW 300,00,00 from the company of this case to the company of this case.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

On April 17, 2003, the Plaintiff: (a) the head of ○○ Tax Office received false processed data without any real transaction from ○○○ at the time of operating ○○ Development in the course of the instant tax investigation with respect to the instant company; (b) led to the confession of tax evasion of KRW 00 million by unlawful means; and (c) was well aware of the illegal act of ○○○○○○○○○○○; (c) did not take any measures to seize taxes on the personal property at a timely stage for criminal charge and the additional collection of taxes on the personal property; and (d) did not pay KRW 124,340,160, which occurred due to the instant company’s illegal act committed before January 29, 2003. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, who acquired the company’s shares, thereby, was liable to compensate for damages arising from the decline in the stock value of the said amount.

On April 17, 2003, the statement of evidence No. 11 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the head of the ○○ Tax Office was led to the confession of illegally evading KRW 100 million from the Ansan○○ at the time of the tax investigation on April 17, 2003, and was prepared up to a letter that he would be fully responsible for the illegal act of ○○○○○○○, and that he was well aware of the illegal act of ○○, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the plaintiff'

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.