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

A. On January 3, 1996, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing global income tax (including additional tax) amounting to KRW 169,482,00 and KRW 33,896,400 (including additional tax) for fiscal year 1990 on the Plaintiff on January 15, 1996 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200, Jan. 3, 2096) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da896, Apr. 3, 200).

나. 원고는 위 종합소득세 등을 납부기한 내에 납부하지 아니한 채 행정소송을 제기하였는데, 1998. 10. 29. 〇〇고등법원으로부터 위 종합소득세 및 방위세 부과처분 중 종합소득세 금 108,795,600원 및 방위세 금 21,759,120원을 초과하는 부분을 취소한다는 취지의 판결이 선고되었고, 이에 대하여 원고와 피고가 모두 상고하였으나, 1999. 2. 27. 대법원 98두18541호로 각 상고기각판결이 선고되어 위 〇〇고등법원 판결이 확정되었다.

C. Accordingly, on March 6, 1999, the Defendant issued a decision to reduce the global income tax of KRW 108,053,60, and the defense tax of KRW 21,759,120, and thereafter notified the Plaintiff that the Defendant would collect KRW 6,490,630 as additional dues of January 16, 1996 and KRW 91,464,40 as additional dues of KRW 16,40 as of January 16, 1996, while issuing a notice of tax payment of global income tax, etc.

라. 원고는 이 사건 가산금 및 중가산금 고지에 불복하여 2002. 11. 20. 〇〇지방국세청장에게 이의신청을 하였으나, 〇〇지방국세청장은 2002. 12. 20. 이의신청 주장은 받아들일 수 없다는 이유로 이의신청을 기각하였고, 원고는 다시 2003. 3. 29. 국세청장에게 심사청구를 하였으나, 국세청장은 2003. 9. 8. 청구인(원고)이 취소를 구하는 가산금과 중과산금의 부과처분은 존재하지 않는다는 이유로 심사청구를 각하하였으며, 원고는 2004. 1. 5. 〇〇지방법원에 가산금 및 중가산금 부과처분 취소소송을 제기하여 2005. 3. 31. 위 법원이 가산금 및 중가산금 고지행위에 처분성이 없다는 이유로 소 각하 판결을 선고하자 원고가 항소하여 2005. 12. 22. 〇〇고등법원에서 항소기각 판결이 선고되고 원고의 상고 포기로 2006. 1. 21. 위 판결이 확정되었다.

마. 원고는 2005. 12. 29. 동일한 처분에 대하여 〇〇지방법원에 가산금등부과처분무효확인의 소를 제기하여 2006. 5. 18. 위 법원은 처분성이 없다는 이유로 소 각하 판결을 선고하여, 위 판결이 2006. 6. 24. 확정되었다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The parties' assertion

With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of the absence of the notification of the additional dues and increased additional dues as of January 3, 1996 on the premise that the said notification constitutes the disposition of imposition or collection of additional dues and increased additional dues, the Defendant asserts that the instant notification of additional dues and increased additional dues cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to the lawsuit for confirmation of non-existence, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The additional dues and aggravated additional dues provided for in Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act are a kind of incidental dues imposed in the meaning of interest on arrears if national taxes are not paid by the due date. If national taxes are not paid by the due date, they are naturally generated under the above provisions of the Act and the amount thereof are determined if national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date of payment by the due date. In order to commence the collection procedure, it is possible to demand the payment by the due date. Thus, if the payment demand is unreasonable or procedural defects exist, it is possible to file a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the disposition. However, if the tax office notifies the payment of the purport that the additional dues and aggravated additional dues will be collected by one month after the due date of payment, and if the payment is not urged after the due date of payment, the additional dues and increased additional dues cannot be collected by the plaintiff or the increased additional dues after the lapse of the due date of payment period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du213, Sept. 22, 2000).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, we decide to dismiss the lawsuit of this case and decide as per Disposition.