Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant is reversed, and the judgment of the first instance on this part is revoked, and this part of the lawsuit is brought.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Whether a taxation claim on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal constitutes a “property claim arising from a cause arising prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures” under Article 118 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) and a taxation summary prescribed by the Act prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures
It is determined on the basis of whether the taxation claim has been established due to the fulfillment of the case.
Where the tax authority disposes of income as the representative bonus of a corporation and notifies the change in the amount of income, the liability to pay the income tax withheld therefrom shall be established at the time when a notice of change in the amount of income is served. Thus, if a notice of change in the amount of income was served on the relevant corporation after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures for the relevant corporation, the obligation to pay income tax withheld therefrom shall accrue from the cause after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and shall not be deemed rehabilitation claims provided for in the Debtor Rehabilitation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du23365, Feb. 28, 2013). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it can be known that the notice of change in the amount of income, which was given on the ground that the omitted amount of the Plaintiff’s sales was leaked out of the company, was made after
Although the reasoning of the lower judgment is somewhat inappropriate, the lower court’s conclusion rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the fact that the withheld income tax of this case constitutes a rehabilitation claim is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the
2. The defendant.