[1] The principal offender of the crime of tax evasion under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

[2] The case holding that a person who has completed the registration of transfer of ownership in his/her or a third party's name does not constitute an agent under Article 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by means of telephone filing a lawsuit on the part of his/her heir who was affixed a certificate of delegation of authority by deceiving the heir

[1] Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that "any person who evades a tax, obtains a refund or deduction of tax by fraudulent or other unlawful means shall be punished in accordance with the following subparagraphs," and Article 3 of the same Act provides that "if a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other employed person of a corporation or individual commits an offense prescribed in this Act with respect to the business or property of the corporation or individual, not only shall the offender be punished, but also the corporation or individual shall be punished by a fine as provided in the corresponding Article." Accordingly, the offender of a crime of tax evasion provided in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is the person liable to pay tax under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the representative of the corporation or the agent, employee, or other employed person

[2] The case holding that in case where the defendant, by deceiving his heir, affixed a seal on the certificate of delegation of a lawsuit and completed the registration of ownership transfer for inherited property in his/her own or a third party by using it, he/she does not constitute an agent, employee, or other employed person of his/her heir who is liable to pay inheritance tax in filing a lawsuit against the defendant without any reason, on the ground that the heir who is liable to pay inheritance tax did not grant any power to dispose of or manage the inherited land, and the defendant does not constitute an agent, employee, or other employed person of his/her heir in filing a registration of ownership transfer for the defendant or a third party without any reason.

[1] Articles 3 and 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act / [2] Articles 3 and 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do299 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2707)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al.

Gwangju High Court Decision 97No21 delivered on November 28, 1997

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that "any person who evades a tax, obtains a tax refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means shall be punished in accordance with the following subparagraphs," and Article 3 of the same Act provides that "if a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other employed person of a corporation or individual commits an offense prescribed in this Act with respect to the business or property of the corporation or individual, not only shall the offender be punished, but also the corporation or individual shall be punished by a fine provided for in the relevant Article." Accordingly, the criminal subject of a crime of tax evasion provided for in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is a person liable to pay tax under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and a representative of a corporation or individual, an agent, employee, or other employed person of a corporation or individual provided for in Article 3 of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do299 delivered on

According to the facts found by the first instance court regarding the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the defendant is not entitled to file a lawsuit for the transfer of ownership on April 10, 193 on behalf of his heir such as the 1st century, and the defendant is not entitled to do so without any intention to process the inheritance tax issues of each of the real estate in the judgment of the first instance court for the current heir such as the 1st century. The defendant is not entitled to obtain a certificate of personal seal impression and a certificate of stay, which are necessary documents to process the inheritance tax issues, and the defendant is not entitled to file a lawsuit for the transfer of ownership on behalf of his heir for the reason that he did not explain the specific reason to this, and there is no illegality of law by reporting the transfer of ownership to the third party's name or the letter of delegation of the lawsuit by the current owner of the above land. The defendant is not entitled to file a lawsuit for the transfer of ownership on behalf of his heir, which is the 2nd judgment of the second instance court.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)