이 사건 가산세부과처분은 정당함[국승]
The disposition imposing additional tax in this case is legitimate.
The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a justifiable ground that could not be caused by his/her neglect of duty, and there is no reason to deem otherwise that the principle of good faith and the principle of protection of trust should apply to the Plaintiff.
Article 47-2 of the National Tax Basic Act
2014Gudan3245 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
Head of Seodaemun Tax Office
June 5, 2014
July 3, 2014
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of transfer income tax for the year 2009, which reverts to the Plaintiff on September 12, 2013, revoked the part of KRW 0,000,000 for additional tax on negligent tax returns (0,000,000 for additional tax on negligent tax and KRW 0,000 for unfaithful tax).
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 15, 2009, the Plaintiff owned and transferred to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation the land and buildings thereon (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) located in Goyang-dong 228-27, Goyang-dong, Goyang-si, and the Plaintiff received KRW 00,000,000 from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation around December 18, 2009, and KRW 00,000,000,000, around May 6, 2010.
B. As the Plaintiff did not file a return on the tax base of capital gains within the prescribed period, the head of Naju Tax Office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile at the time deemed the transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 00 million to the Plaintiff on February 3, 2012, and determined and notified the transfer income tax of KRW 00,000,000 calculated based thereon, and the Plaintiff paid it.
C. After that, the Defendant confirmed the fact that the transfer value of the instant real estate was 435,839,100 through the planning and inspection, and on the basis thereof, on September 12, 2013, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,00,000 for the transfer income tax of KRW 00,000 for the additional tax on negligent tax returns (hereinafter “additional tax on negligent tax on negligent tax”) and KRW 0,000 for the additional tax on negligent tax on negligent tax (hereinafter “additional tax on negligent tax”).
D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant tax return and the imposition of additional tax for unfaithful payment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”), but was dismissed on December 24, 2013.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4 through 10, Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff was notified by the Director of the Jeju Tax Office without filing a return on capital gains tax, and submitted the relevant data faithfully, and there was no need to recognize that the amount of tax imposed was legitimate. A taxpayer cannot be trusted in the disposition of imposition by the State agency, and a taxpayer with weak knowledge in tax law cannot be confirmed as to whether the details were verified and properly imposed. Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s failure to file a return on capital gains tax and make a payment due to the Defendant’s mistake, imposing penalty tax on the Plaintiff is unlawful.
B. Relevant statutes
The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.
1) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under the tax law is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by individual tax laws in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be aware of such obligations, and thus, it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be exempted from imposition if there are justifiable grounds that make it difficult for the taxpayer to be able to be able to assume the obligations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4089, Apr. 15, 2005). However, the taxpayer’s intentional or negligent acts and errors in statutes do not constitute justifiable grounds that do not cause the taxpayer to breach of his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du10545, Apr. 26, 2007).
2) As to the instant case, the Plaintiff is the person who did not report the tax base of capital gains within the given period. In addition, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, even if the Plaintiff was found to have erred in calculating the transfer value from the capital gains tax imposed by the Director of the Jeju Tax Office due to the site, error, etc. under the statutes, it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable reason not to cause the Plaintiff to neglect his/her duty, and there is no other circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff should apply the principle of good faith or the principle of protecting trust.
3) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition is lawful.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.