Whether the seizure and dividend of the person liable for secondary tax payment are wrong or wrong;

The designation of the person liable for secondary tax payment is lawful and the seizure is lawful, so the dividend following the designation is lawful.

Article 5 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Single 17419, an objection to the distribution

IsaA

Korea

May 9, 2013

June 13, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The amount of dividend for BB tax revenue in the dividend table prepared by this court on December 17, 2012 with respect to the case of compulsory auction for real estate at Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, 2012, the amount of dividend for BB tax revenue is KRW 0,000,000, and KRW 00 for KimCC, respectively, shall be corrected to KRW 0,000,000, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. CCC Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as a "Non-Party Co., Ltd.") held a general meeting of shareholders on May 9, 2005 and decided dissolution on June 1, 2005, and completed the registration of liquidator appointment on May 1, 2005, when the Plaintiff was appointed as a liquidator of the sub-committee on May 9, 2005 and completed the registration of liquidator appointment on June 1, 2005.

B. On April 19, 2006, the Defendant attached the investment certificates to the Construction Mutual Aid Association of the non-party company, but confirmed that the investment certificates of the non-party company cannot be transferred to the non-party company upon the establishment of a pledge, and released the seizure of the investment certificates.

C. On November 30, 2010, the Construction Mutual Aid Association exercised a pledge on the investment certificates of the non-party company, and delivered the remaining KRW 00,000,000,000, which is the liquidator of the non-party company, after deducting the claim amount from the sales price of the non-party company. The plaintiff disposed of the above KRW 00,000,000 without paying the delinquent national tax of the non-party company.

D. On January 24, 201, the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff disposed of KRW 00,000,000 without paying the non-party company’s delinquent taxes, issued a disposition to designate the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer for the non-party company’s delinquent national taxes, and on March 29, 2012, attached the Plaintiff’s return 810,000 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”).

E. Meanwhile, on December 28, 2011, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note of KRW 00,000,000, and a notary public prepared a notarial deed of Promissory Notes No. 218, 201, and delivered it to KimF. KimF made an application for a compulsory auction on the instant land using the said notarial deed of Promissory Notes No. 2012,506, Suwon District Court’s branch court’s branch court’s branch court’s contribution on January 11, 2012. On December 17, 2012, the said court drafted a distribution schedule that distributes the remainder of KRW 0,00,000,000, which deducts the enforcement cost from the sales price of the instant land of KRW 00,000,000, from the sales price of the instant land of KRW 17,000.

F. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on December 21, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 12, Eul evidence 1 to 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

On the other hand, Article 38 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that when a corporation is dissolved and distributes or delivers any remaining property without paying any national tax, additional dues or expenses for disposition on default imposed on or to be paid by the corporation, if the amount to be collected falls short of the amount to be collected even after the disposition on default is conducted on the corporation, the liquidator or the person to whom the remaining property is distributed or delivered after the liquidation shall have secondary tax liability for the shortage. As seen above, inasmuch as it is acknowledged that the non-party company failed to pay national tax and that the non-party company did not pay the non-party company's delinquent national tax even though the plaintiff, which is the liquidator of the non-party company, received 00,000,000 won from the construction

The plaintiff asserts that the secondary tax liability of the liquidator is established within the scope of the property owned by the liquidated corporation, and that it is impossible to enforce compulsory execution on the property of the liquidator. Thus, Article 38 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the secondary tax liability under Article 38 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be limited to the value of distributed or transferred property in the case of the liquidator, and it shall be limited to the value of each person's property in the case of a person who is distributed or transferred the distributed or transferred the property." Thus, the above provision means that the liquidator imposes the secondary tax liability on the liquidator to the extent of the value of the property distributed or transferred by the liquidator, and it is meaningful that it is not possible

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the seizure of the land of this case is null and void without the approval of the director of a regional tax office under Article 24 (3) of the National Tax Collection Act. Thus, when the approval of the director of a regional tax office under Article 24 (3) of the National Tax Collection Act is deemed impossible after the national tax becomes final and conclusive, it is necessary to seize the taxpayer's property within the limit of the estimated amount of national tax in advance. In full view of the purport of the arguments in the items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the defendant issued a disposition designating the plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer on January 24, 201 and sent the written disposition to the plaintiff's domicile on February 15, 201, and the written disposition was delivered to the plaintiff's domicile on February 18, 2011, and the fact that the defendant seized the land of this case on March 29, 2012 that the designation of the plaintiff of this case was confirmed after the second taxpayer's disposition on the land of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.