The legitimacy of the assertion that increased additional charges are unreasonable against the designation and disposition of the secondary taxpayer

Inasmuch as the increased additional charges are naturally generated by the law due to the non-party company’s failure to pay the delinquent value-added tax, it cannot be deemed that the liability for payment of the increased additional charges is extinguished as long as the tax authority cannot be deemed to have a duty to designate and notify the secondary taxpayer at a specific time.

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act

Article 22 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On March 27, 2007, the part exceeding 18,11,200 won out of the amount exceeding 22,976,850 won of the value-added tax for the second period portion of the second period of the 1999 that the Defendant designated and notified the Plaintiffs as the secondary taxpayer of ○○ Development Co., Ltd. for the payment, and the part exceeding 6,037,060 won out of the amount exceeding 7,658,950 won for the Plaintiff Kim Jong-sik, and the amount exceeding 6,037,060 won for the Plaintiff Kim Jong-young, respectively (the tax amount imposed on each of the plaintiffs Kim-young is revoked by 4,865,650 won, and the amount exceeding 1,621,890 won, but this purport is referred to as above).

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1-2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3, and the whole purport of arguments.

A. ○○ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○ Development Co., Ltd.”) is a corporation that was engaged in real estate leasing business under 792-7, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, 792-7 and closed on August 13, 199. As of December 199, Plaintiff Kim Jong-young was 30%, Plaintiff Kim Jong-young, its wife, held 10% shares, and other 35% shares and 35% shares.

B. The Defendant issued a notice to the non-party company on October 31, 2003 at the time limit for payment of KRW 50,058,600 for the second term portion of value-added tax in 1999, but the non-party company did not pay it. Accordingly, on March 27, 2007, the Defendant issued a notice to the non-party company for the payment of KRW 22,976,850 (including additional charges up to March 31, 2007) for the non-party company's share amounting to KRW 76,589,530 (including 76,589,530%) for the non-party company's share amounting to KRW 7,658,950 (76,589,530%) for the non-party company's share amounting to KRW 10% (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant notice for payment").

C. On July 30, 2007, the Plaintiffs, who were dissatisfied with this, filed a request for a trial with the National Tax Tribunal on July 30, 2007, but was dismissed on October 16, 2007.

2. Whether each payment notice of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In addition to the value-added tax in this case, the non-party company was in arrears with the total amount of KRW 115,96,300, including the corporate tax in 2003, the corporate tax in 1999, and the value-added tax in 299. Accordingly, on December 6, 2004, the defendant designated the plaintiffs as the secondary taxpayer and notified them of the 34,798,850, and the payment of KRW 11,59,60 to the plaintiff Kim Jong-young and the plaintiffs Kim Jong-sung to pay the total amount of KRW 11,59,60.

However, although the value-added tax of this case had already been in arrears, the notice of this case was omitted from the defendant's cause attributable to the defendant, and only after March 27, 2007, the notice of this case was given. Since the increased additional dues that occurred during the period from December 31, 2004 to March 31, 2007 were increased for the defendant's cause attributable to the defendant, there is no obligation for the plaintiffs to pay them. Since the increased additional dues that occurred during the period from December 31, 2004, the ratio of the shares of the non-party company's delinquent tax amount of KRW 60,370,670 (including additional dues) until December 31, 204, the plaintiff Kim Jong-young was liable to pay only KRW 18,11,200, and the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung was liable to pay only KRW 6,037,060 in each of the above notice of this case's payment.

(b) Related statutes;

[Framework Act on National Taxes]

Article 39 (Secondary Liability to Pay Taxes by Investor)

[National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 8832 of Dec. 31, 2007)]

Article 12 (Payment Notice to Secondary Taxpayer)

Article 22 (Additional Dues for National Tax Collection Act)

C. Determination

The secondary tax liability under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is abstractly established by the occurrence of a fact that meets the requirements, such as the delinquency of the principal taxpayer, and it is specifically finalized by the notification of payment. In this case, as to the second-party company's delinquent tax amount of value-added tax of 50,058,600 (principal tax) and additional dues of 1999 in which the non-party company was delinquent, the defendant designated the plaintiffs as the second taxpayer on March 27, 2007 and notified the amount to be collected by contribution shares by the notice of payment, and the duty to pay the plaintiffs specifically becomes final and conclusive by the notification of payment. Such second taxpayer's secondary tax liability may be freely determined by the head of the competent tax office within the exclusion period of the right to pay taxes after the occurrence of the requirements. Thus, as alleged by the plaintiffs, even if the defendant had given the second taxpayer's notice of payment on December 4, 2004, it does not constitute an unlawful act in each of the notice of payment in this case.

In addition, the Plaintiffs’ secondary tax liability includes national taxes and additional dues due to non-party company’s delinquency, and the increased additional dues that occurred after December 31, 2004 claimed by the Plaintiffs are naturally generated by the statutory provisions due to the non-party company’s failure to pay value-added tax. Thus, insofar as the tax authority cannot be deemed to have a duty to designate and notify the secondary taxpayer at a specific time, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs’ liability to pay increased additional dues thereafter is extinguished.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims in this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.