A. We need to clarify whether the previous trial procedure has been followed.

(b) Purport of Article 13(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

A. In a case where the court judged that the previous trial procedure had been lawfully passed, even if the grounds for reversal of the Supreme Court were to be the grounds for reversal, the court may make a judgment on the merits without further proceeding.

B. The purport of Article 13(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that “any director or manager of an unincorporated association, foundation, or other organization’s national tax obligation must be performed as a representative” is that the director or manager must be designated as a person liable for tax payment, not that the director or manager should perform his liability for tax payment with his personal property, but rather that the director or manager must perform the liability for tax payment imposed on the organization.

Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 13(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Plaintiff

Masan Gun

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu133 delivered on December 27, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to whether the previous trial proceedings have been rejected:

According to the records, in the judgment of the court below prior to remand, the case was reversed and remanded on the ground that the Supreme Court made a judgment on the merits without examining whether it had gone through a legitimate procedure of prior trial as prescribed by the Local Tax Act, and the court below remanded the case, and it is evident that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was brought through legitimate procedure of prior trial. If the court below judged that the procedure of prior trial was lawfully passed through due process of prior trial, it is obvious that the judgment of the court below is possible to omit the judgment and make a decision on the merits of this case even if it is based on the grounds for reversal of the Supreme Court's judgment, and it is obvious that the defendant does not dispute the above, and the judgment of the court below which made a decision on the merits without any grounds for objection.

2. As to the violation of the rules of evidence and the misapprehension of legal principle

The court below held that the plaintiff cannot impose acquisition tax on the plaintiff on the ground that some of the church representatives of the Busan Regional Association of Korea, which belongs to the Korea Egyptian Association of the Korea Egyptian Association, shall form an organization to establish, manage, and operate a cemetery for its members with money contributed from each church, and that the land of this case was purchased with money contributed by the above organization for the purpose of joint graveyarding the land of this case and did not constitute the above organization up to the time when the contract was entered into. As the above organization was not formed by the time, the plaintiff, the chairperson of the above federation, and the non-party, who is the senior Egyptian, was a purchaser for convenience by borrowing the name of the plaintiff and the non-party, who is the chairman of the Korea Egyptian Association, constituted the council for the operation of the church and the organization

Examining the evidence adopted by the court below in light of the records, the above recognition is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

In light of the above facts, the lower court’s rejection of this case’s land acquisition violates the principle of substantial taxation, and thus, did not err in the misapprehension of legal doctrine as to acquisition tax.

In addition, the court below's purport is that the above council recognizes it as an unincorporated organization under Article 13 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that "any director or manager must perform his duties related to the national taxes of an unincorporated association, foundation, or other organization as a representative" is that the director or manager must be designated as a person liable for duty payment and that the director or manager must fulfill his duty to pay taxes with his personal property, not the fact that he should fulfill his duty to pay taxes, so the court below's judgment is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is groundless

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)