A. We dismiss the part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant BB head of the tax office seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 2,212,642.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant BB director are dismissed.

2. The part against the head of the remaining defendant BB, excluding the part to be revoked below, among the judgment of the first instance, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part

Defendant BB’s imposition of KRW 1,265,280 on November 26, 2015 by the head of the Gu against the Plaintiff on November 26, 2015, which exceeds KRW 1,04,017, among the imposition of KRW 1,265,280 on the Plaintiff.

3. The remainder of Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.

4. Of the total litigation costs, 4/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

On November 26, 2015, the imposition of global income tax of 12,652,820 won (including additional tax of 2,212,642 won) belonging to the year 2013 by Defendant BB head and the imposition of KRW 1,265,280 on the local income tax belonging to the year 2013 by Defendant BB head shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the claim for revocation of ex officio cancelled tax amount among the instant lawsuit

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012).

On August 9, 2017, after the closing of argument in the trial, Defendant BB head of the tax office rendered a decision to revoke ex officio the imposition of penalty tax of KRW 2,212,642 among the imposition of penalty tax of KRW 12,652,820 for the Plaintiff in the year 2013. As such, in the instant lawsuit, the claim for revocation of ex officio is sought for revocation of the disposition that does not exist due to the extinguishment of its validity, and is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit.

3. Determination as to the claim for revocation of the remainder of each taxation disposition of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 3th to 4th 1th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant remuneration is business income

A) Business income under the Income Tax Act refers to income generated from a business, which is a social activity continuously and repeatedly conducted in an independent position for profit-making purposes. Whether a certain income constitutes business income or other income which is a lump-sum income, ought to be determined in accordance with social norms, taking into account the details, period, frequency, mode, and all other circumstances before and after the activity of a person liable to pay tax, and whether such income is for profit-making purposes and whether such income continues to be consistent with social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du8430, Sept. 9, 2010; 2017Du36885, Jul. 11, 2017).

B) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the instant remuneration constitutes business income under the Income Tax Act, i.e., “income obtained through continuous and repeated activities with his own calculation and responsibility for profit-making purposes” in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account each description of evidence Nos. 6 through 9 in the process of the instant disposition and the purport of the entire pleadings.

① From 2011 to 2014, the Plaintiff, an attorney-at-law, received the total of KRW 388,100,000 in the amount of KRW 41,80,000 in the course of the bankruptcy trustee’s business, 88,30,000 in the year 2012, and KRW 97,60,000 in the year 2013, and KRW 160,400,00 in the year 2014.

② During the above period, the Plaintiff’s total amount of income reaches KRW 98,800,00 in 201, KRW 150,100,00 in 2012, KRW 144,40,000 in total, KRW 616,50,00 in total, and KRW 223,200,00 in total, KRW 203,200 in 2014, and KRW 62.9% in average from 2011 to 2014 in total, and KRW 67.6% in 2013 in which the Plaintiff received the instant remuneration.

③ Even if a trustee in bankruptcy was appointed according to the court’s decision and his/her business nature is strong for the public interest, it is difficult to deny the profit-making nature in light of the period during which the plaintiff performed the corporate restructuring and the amount of profits accrued therefrom.

C) Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise (it cannot be deemed that the nature of the Plaintiff’s business income as the instant remuneration differs due to such a reason, even if there is a certain difference in the appointment of an attorney-at-law working for a law firm as a trustee in bankruptcy and the attorney-at-law working for a private law office as a trustee in bankruptcy in bankruptcy.)

2) Whether the principle of no taxation without law is violated

Article 19 (1) 13 of the Income Tax Act provides that "income generated from specialized, scientific and technological service business," and "income generated from continuous and repeated activity under one's own calculation and responsibility for profit-making purposes as income similar to income under subparagraphs 1 through 19 of Article 20 of the Income Tax Act."

On the other hand, this case's remuneration is a business income, which is a "income generated from the specialty, science, and technology service business" under Article 19 (1) 13 of the Income Tax Act, or a income similar to income under subparagraph 1 through 19 of Article 19 (1) of the Income Tax Act, which is a "income obtained from the continuous and repeated activity under his own calculation and responsibility for profit-making purposes." Thus, the disposition imposing global income tax in this case's global income tax is expanded or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds, and it is difficult to view it as a violation of the principle of no taxation without the law. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3) Whether the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition is violated

In order for a non-taxable practice under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes to be established, there must be an objective fact that has not been taxed over a considerable period of time, and a tax authority should have an intention not to impose taxes due to any special circumstance despite its knowledge that it is able to impose taxes on the said matter. Such public opinion or intent should be expressed explicitly or implicitly, but in order to establish an implied indication, there must be circumstances to deem that the tax authority expressed its intent not to impose taxes on the state of non-taxation for a considerable period of time, unlike a mere omission of taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7855, Sept. 5, 2003).

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence mentioned above and the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., ① the attorney-at-law expressed the general view that the remuneration for the service provided and received as the "temporary" by the National Tax Service on May 22, 2000, which is cited by the plaintiff constitutes other income, and the trustee in bankruptcy continuously and repeatedly accumulated the remuneration of the trustee in bankruptcy so that it would always be taxed only on other income even if it has been accumulated in business feasibility, and ② the tax authority’s receipt of tax amount by the taxpayer’s report in the form of return and payment is merely an act of fact, and it cannot be deemed as a confirmatory disposition, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the trustee in bankruptcy has generally established the practice of imposing tax only on other income. Thus, the plaintiff’s assertion that the instant global income tax was unlawful since it violates the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation.

4) Whether the imposition of penalty tax in the instant disposition imposing global income tax is unlawful

As seen earlier, regarding the imposition of penalty tax in the instant global income tax, the imposition of penalty tax in the instant global income tax has already been determined ex officio and the revocation request on this portion is inappropriate. However, the issue of illegality in the imposition of penalty tax in the instant global income tax is a premise of the legality of the imposition of local income tax in the instant case.

Additional tax is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the Act in cases where a taxpayer violates various duties, such as a report and tax payment, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, and where there exist justifiable grounds, it shall not be imposed (Article 48(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Therefore, in cases where a reasonable ground exists that makes it impossible for the taxpayer to assume the responsibility for failure to know his/her duties due to the conflict of views in tax-related interpretation beyond the scope of simple legal sites or misunderstandings, or where there are circumstances in which it is difficult to expect the party to perform his/her duties, etc. which make it difficult to criticize the fact that he/she neglected to perform such duties, no additional tax may be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du666, Aug. 23, 2002; 2017Du36885, Jul.

In light of the above facts, the above facts and evidence as well as Gap evidence as mentioned above, and the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the purport of the whole argument, i.e., ① because the trustee in bankruptcy has a public nature different from the business conducted by other general business operators, the fact-finding court's opinion on whether the remuneration received by the trustee in bankruptcy is business income earned continuously and repeatedly through his own calculation and responsibility for profit-making purposes, or other income paid in terms of public interest costs, and ② The National Tax Service's established rules of May 22, 200 (No. 46013-193) of the above National Tax Service's established rules of May 22, 200, "the remuneration received as a trustee in bankruptcy shall be withheld as other income," the plaintiff's view that there is a possibility that the payment received as a trustee in bankruptcy based on the above established rules could be mistaken as other income, and ③ Seoul Central District Court also did not impose the tax on global income tax in this case, even if the plaintiff failed to pay the income tax in this case.

5) The calculation of legitimate tax amount for the imposition of local income tax of the instant case

As seen earlier, the imposition of penalty tax in the instant disposition of global income tax is unlawful. As such, in calculating the tax amount of global income tax for the Plaintiff for the year 2013 according to the descriptions in Gap evidence 6-1 (tax notice of global income tax) and evidence 1 (written resolution of global income tax for the year 2013), the legitimate tax amount is 10,440,178 won (=12,652,820 - 2,212,642). Article 94(1) and Article 89(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014) (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014) if the legitimate tax amount of local income tax for the Plaintiff for the year 2013 is calculated, the amount is less than 1,04,017 won (=10,40,178 won x 10%).

Therefore, the portion exceeding KRW 1,044,017 out of the imposition disposition of local income tax of this case is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant BB head of the tax office's claim for cancellation of the imposition of additional tax is unlawful and dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's remaining claim against the defendant B B head of the tax office is accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance partially differs from this conclusion, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the defendant B head of the tax office's claim for cancellation of the imposition of additional tax among the lawsuits against the defendant B head of the tax office's lawsuit against the defendant B head of the tax office shall be dismissed, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant B head of the tax office's lawsuit against the defendant B head of the tax office shall be partially accepted, and the part of the judgment of first instance against the defendant B head of the tax office which exceeds the above recognition scope