The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below, citing the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, (1) pursuant to Article 164 (1) 5 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter "Income Tax Act"), the person who pays other income to an individual liable to pay income tax (including a corporation) shall submit a written payment report to the head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over withholding, etc. by the end of February of the year following the year in which the date of payment of income falls, and Article 164 (2) of the Income Tax Act, Article 214 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19327, Feb. 9, 2006; hereinafter "Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act"), and Article 97 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 554, Apr. 17, 2007; hereinafter "Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act"), and other tax payment statements cannot be submitted.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of duty to submit payment records under Article 164 of the Income Tax Act and the existence of non-taxable practice.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Under the tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of tax claims, the taxpayer’s intentional and negligent acts are not considered as administrative sanctions imposed in accordance with the law in cases where the taxpayer violates the reporting and tax liability as prescribed by the law without justifiable grounds, and the land or mistake of the law does not constitute justifiable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du5944, Apr. 12, 2002).

Based on the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, the lower court determined that the imposition of additional tax on the Plaintiff’s failure to submit the payment record is lawful, on the ground that it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s justifiable grounds exist in the submission of the payment record or that the obligation to submit the payment record is exempted solely on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to submit the payment record, including the Plaintiff’s failure to submit the payment record, did not examine the tax issues under the relevant tax law while taking over the school juristic person subject to the legal regulation of the token in its establishment and management and paying

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for imposing additional tax under the Income Tax Act.

In addition, Article 81 (5) of the Income Tax Act provides measures to minimize the limit of fundamental rights due to the above provision, such as (i) realizing the underlying taxation principle by collecting taxation data on an income earner and preventing tax evasion, and (ii) requiring a payer of income to submit a written payment statement stating the personal information, income amount, etc. of an income earner is an appropriate means to achieve the legislative purpose; (iii) imposing an obligation to submit a written payment statement on an income earner rather than the income earner subject to the collection of taxation data; (iv) filing a written payment statement in certain cases in the Income Tax Act; and (v) exemption from the imposition of additional tax even if a written payment statement is not submitted, it cannot be deemed that the degree of the obligation to be borne due to the above provision or the burden of additional tax is excessive; and on the other hand, the above provision does not violate the principle of proportionality and the least infringement principle in the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Order 2012Hun-Ba28, May 29, 2014).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.