[법인세부과처분취소][미간행]
Whether a tax disposition should be revoked in the event that a legitimate tax amount is not calculated in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition (affirmative), and in this case, whether the court has the duty to calculate a legitimate tax amount ex officio (negative)
Articles 19 and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Sejong Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Yang Jae-in, Attorney Han-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Chuncheon Director of the Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu392 decided December 24, 2014
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
The issue of whether a disposition is lawful is determined depending on whether it exceeds a legitimate amount of tax. The parties concerned may submit objective tax bases and materials supporting the tax amount until the closing of arguments in the fact-finding court, and when the amount of tax to be imposed lawfully is calculated based on such materials, only the portion exceeding the legitimate amount of tax should be revoked. However, if the amount of tax to be imposed lawfully is not so, the whole amount of the taxation disposition must be revoked, and in such a case, the court does not have the duty to calculate the reasonable amount of tax to be imposed actively by its authority (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13527, Apr. 28,
In light of the records, the court below's revocation of the entire disposition of this case on the ground of its stated reasoning is just in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of revocation of taxation disposition,
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 on the bench.
Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)