Whether a taxation claim against the reorganization company is a reorganization claim or a public interest claim.

The criteria for determining whether a taxation claim against a reorganization company is a reorganization claim or a public interest claim shall depend on whether a taxation claim has been established prior to the commencement decision for the reorganization of the company.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff Class A earned income tax amounting to KRW 3,96,470 and KRW 796,580 as well as the defense tax amounting to KRW 510,89 and KRW 73,490 as of December 16, 1991, and the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 6,382,80 as of KRW 73,580 as of December 16, 1991 and the imposition of KRW 510,890 as of KRW 73,490 as of KRW 5,00 and KRW 6,382,80 as of KRW 5,00 as of January 10, 1992 shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Details of the imposition;

갑제1,2,3,4,5호증,갑제6호증의 1,2,을제1호증의 1 내지 10,을제2호증의 1,2,을제3호증의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 정리회사 ㅇㅇ농산주식회사(이하 원고회사라고 한다.)는 회사정리절차 개시결정전인 1988.2.1. ㅇㅇ산업주식회사를 흡수합병 하였는데 피고는 1991.10.7. 부터 1991.10.19.까지 사이에 흡수합병전의 ㅇㅇ산업회사의 1986.1987.사업연도분 법인세과세표준 신고에 대하여 법인제세 통합조사를 실시하여 그 결과 과세누락부분에 대하여 1991.12.16.자로 1987년 1기분 부가가치세 금6,382,800원과 1986사업연도분 법인세 금510,890원 및 동 방위세 금73,490원을 각각 부과처분 하였고 이어서 1992.1.10 피고가 ㅇㅇ산업의 1987사업연도 소득금액을 결정하면서 소득처분한 인정상여에 대한 소득금액변동통지를 받고 원고회사가 원천징수하여야 할 갑종근로소득세 금3,986,470원 및 동방위세 금796,680원을 자진납부한 사실, 한편 원고회사는 1988.5.19 ㅇㅇ민사지방법원으로부터 회사정리절차개시결정을 받아 1989.8.29. 같은 법원으로부터 정리계획인가결정이 있었던 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

2. Judgment on the part of the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing Class A employment income tax and defense tax on January 10, 1992

The fact that the Plaintiff voluntarily paid the Defendant the Class A earned income tax and the defense tax thereon, which shall be withheld at January 10, 1992, is as seen above. The earned income tax withheld at source is automatically determined as prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes without a taxpayer’s report or a decision by the tax authority, and the withholding agent bears the obligation to collect the amount automatically determined from the recipient and pay it to the tax authority, and accordingly, the tax authority’s receipt of the withheld tax is merely a mere administrative act, and it is clear that the receipt of the tax is not an administrative disposition as a public authority (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu177, Feb. 14, 1984). Accordingly, it is not illegal because the above part on the premise that the receipt of Class A earned income tax and defense tax by the Plaintiff on January 10, 1992 is an administrative disposition.

3. The legality of the imposition of the corporate tax and defense tax and value-added tax on December 16, 1991.

A. The party's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the tax claim of this case, as a reorganization claim, has already been forfeited by setting the deadline for its filing or the date of the second meeting of interested parties for the confirmation of the reorganization plan, and therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful. The defendant asserts that the tax claim of this case is legitimate since the tax claim of this case was finalized only by the defendant's disposition of this case, and since the time of confirmation is after the plaintiff company was ordered to commence the company reorganization procedure, it does not constitute reorganization claim, and even if the tax claim of this case constitutes reorganization claim, national taxes can be imposed unless the limitation period expires

B. Determination

Whether a taxation claim against the reorganization company becomes a reorganization claim under the Company Reorganization Act or a public-interest claim is determined on the basis of whether the taxation claim was established prior to the commencement order of the company reorganization, and as long as a taxation claim against the company is established prior to the commencement of the company reorganization procedure due to the fulfillment of taxation requirements under the law, it shall be reasonable to view that the taxation claim against the company becomes a reorganization claim even if the contents of the taxation claim are not specifically determined (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu6, Dec. 22, 1981). According to the above facts, the value-added tax in this case is about the first half of 1987, and the corporate tax and defense tax in this case are about the portion of 1986 business year since all of them meet taxation requirements prior to the commencement order of the company reorganization procedure, and therefore, it is obvious that the taxation claim in this case falls under the reorganization claim, and as long as the defendant reported this, it cannot be exempted from the defendant's assertion that even if the period of imposition of national taxes in this case expires, it cannot be exempted from the defendant's imposition of national taxes.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of imposition of Class A earned income tax and defense tax from January 10, 1992 is unlawful and dismissed, and since the disposition of imposition of corporate tax, defense tax and value added tax against the plaintiff company from December 16, 1991 is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation is justified, and it is so accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Articles