Whether the secondary taxpayer’s liability pursuant to Article 39 subparag. 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is limited according to the share possession ratio (negative)

The secondary tax liability system of an investor under Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be deemed an exceptional provision on the principle of limited liability by shareholders, etc. under the Commercial Act, which applies only to limited liability partners or oligopolistic shareholders of a corporation. Therefore, the secondary taxpayer under the above provision shall be liable to pay the total amount of delinquent tax of a corporation, and the liability does not be limited according to the share possession ratio.

Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 279, 331, and 553 of the Commercial Act

Attorney Kim Jong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu8342 delivered on December 20, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The secondary tax liability system of an investor under Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be deemed an exceptional provision on the principle of limited liability of stockholders, etc. under the Commercial Act, which applies only to limited partners or oligopolistic shareholders of a corporation. Therefore, the secondary taxpayer under the above provision shall be liable to pay the total amount of delinquent tax of the corporation, and its responsibility shall not be limited according to the share ownership ratio. In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the oligopolistic shareholder is liable to pay the secondary tax on the total amount of delinquent tax of the corporation, which is the primary taxpayer, is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle on the scope of the secondary tax liability as to the scope of

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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)