There is no benefit to seek confirmation of the absence of the secondary tax liability for the instant tax liability by lawsuit.

As long as it is difficult to deem that there exists a dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff does not bear the secondary tax liability with respect to the instant tax liability, there is no room for any impact on the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status under the absence of the said secondary tax liability, such as being threatened or obstructed by the Defendant.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2016Guhap5628 Confirmation of Non-existence of Obligations

00

00. Head of tax office

June 28, 2017

August 9, 2017

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

It is confirmed that there is no plaintiff's joint tax payment obligation on each tax obligation listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "tax obligation of this case") owed by the Seoban Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Sbiban Construction") to the defendant.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. In a litigation for confirmation, the benefits of confirmation between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it

Accordingly, there is a dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and there is apprehension and danger in the judgment.

It is necessary and appropriate to detect the existence of such legal relations in order to eliminate unstable and risk.

Only the case is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Nu476, Mar. 23, 1982).

B. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the intent to seek confirmation of the absence of joint and several tax liability against the Defendant by asserting that “AA Construction failed to pay the instant tax liability, including corporate tax, and the representative director of the said company was also liable for secondary tax liability, but the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant was extinguished upon the completion of the extinctive prescription of the said tax liability.” On the other hand, through confirmation of the details of the nonperformance, the Defendant expressed a position on several occasions that “the Plaintiff is the principal’s interest in arrears and the secondary taxpayer does not exist.”

C. As long as it is difficult to see that there is a dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff does not bear the secondary tax liability as above, the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in the absence of the said secondary tax liability may not be affected by the Defendant, such as being threatened or obstructed by the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status may not be deemed as having any imminent apprehension or danger.

D. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of the secondary tax liability for the instant tax liability

It is reasonable to view that there is no benefit in confirmation.

2. Conclusion

If so, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.