Customs duties and secondary tax liability of the business transferee;

Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act concerning the designation of the secondary taxpayer by the transferee of the business under the same Act does not apply to customs duties, and the provision of Article 23 of the Customs Act is interpreted to the effect that the same Act does not apply to the tax liability, but only to the meaning of the "collection" within the meaning of consultation.

Article 2, Article 3, Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 23 of the Customs Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Nu91 delivered on December 26, 1972 (Kakadd 10340; Supreme Court Decision 203Nu32 Decided May 28, 1974; Decision 74Nu25 delivered on May 28, 1974 (Article 23(1)1924 of the Customs Act; Court Gazette 492No7912 pages)

Eastern Industrial Company

Head of Seoul Customs Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 3,872,325 on June 8, 1972 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The facts that the Defendant imposed 3,872,325 won on the Plaintiff on June 8, 1972, and that the Nonparty recognized the Plaintiff as the Nonparty’s business transferee and imposed 3,872,325 won of the customs duties (import duties) payable by the Nonparty as the Nonparty’s secondary taxpayer pursuant to Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act does not conflict between the parties.

First, Article 16 of the National Tax Collection Act cannot be applied to this case. Second, with respect to the plaintiff's claim that this disposition was unlawful because the plaintiff is not the non-party's business transferee, the National Tax Collection Act can be viewed as a general law on the collection of national taxes (including customs duties) and as a matter of course, the matters concerning the collection of national taxes can be collected pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act (including the designation of the second taxpayer). The special law provides that the collection of customs duties in the case of absence of security such as this case under Article 23 of the Customs Act, which is a special law, shall be in accordance with the National Tax Collection Act except as otherwise provided in the Customs Act. Thus, the defendant's disposition is just in application of the provision on the designation of the second tax liability under the National Tax Collection Act to the non-party's business transferee, and therefore, the defendant's claim that the second tax liability provision under the National Tax Collection Act should not be applied to the remaining amount of customs duties imposed by the non-party's non-party's claim that this disposition is legitimate.

If so, the disposition of the plaintiff's principal lawsuit is well-grounded, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Jeon Soo-hoon (Presiding Judge)