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

Cheong-gu Office

The part concerning additional tax 65,165,430 won shall be revoked among the disposition of rejecting a claim for rectification of corporate tax against the Plaintiff on July 25, 2018.

A. On November 15, 1982, the Plaintiff is a legal entity established with permission under Article 32 of the Civil Act on November 15, 1982.

4. 22. On the other hand, 5 lots of land, such as ○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○-dong (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

As the land was expropriated for the implementation of the ○○ Project, KRW 1,289,317,660 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant compensation”) was paid as compensation for losses for the instant land.

B. On January 6, 2017, ○○○○ affiliated with the Plaintiff filed an application with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for a prior answer to tax interpretation in accordance with the Regulations on the Management of Tax Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”) by the National Tax Service as to whether the instant land falls under “use directly for the proper purpose business” as of the date of disposal of fixed assets corresponding to Article 3(3)5 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1522, Dec. 19, 2017) and Article 2(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27828, Feb. 3, 2017) and the instant compensation is “use directly for the proper purpose business” as of the date of disposal of fixed assets.

By February 6, 2017, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service requested ○○○ to submit documents verifying the Plaintiff’s proper purpose business, such as the Plaintiff’s establishment basis law and the articles of incorporation, and the details used in relation to the pertinent land. The ○○○ submitted data such as the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation.

C. On March 31, 2017, the Plaintiff reported and paid corporate tax for the business year 2016 to the Defendant, and at the time, did not include the instant compensation in the income subject to corporate tax.

D. On February 19, 2018, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a prior answer to the effect that the pertinent land constitutes “where the land is used directly for the proper purpose business” in cases where the land is used for the installation, etc. of literature seedlings and educational facilities, but the income generated from the lease or cultivation of the instant land does not constitute “use directly for the proper purpose business” in cases where the land is used for the proper purpose business.

E. On March 23, 2018, the Plaintiff included the instant compensation in the income subject to corporate tax, and paid the amount of KRW 358,324,240 and the additional tax of KRW 65,165,435 (in the case of corporate tax, the difference between the already paid tax and the already paid tax) for the business year 2016 (17,882,797 and the additional tax of additional tax of KRW 24,607,210, and the additional tax of underreporting the corporate tax for the transfer income of land, and the additional tax of KRW 9,695,533, and the additional tax of KRW 12,979,895, and the additional tax of this case).

F. On June 5, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant compensation should be excluded from income subject to corporate tax, and filed a request for correction with the Defendant for the reduction of the corresponding portion of income equivalent to the instant compensation and the amount of the instant additional tax in the business year 2016, which was revised as above. On July 25, 2018, the Defendant filed a request for correction to the effect that the amount of the instant compensation should be reduced to 0 won.

The proper purpose is because it is not used for the installation, etc. of educational facilities but leased or cultivated.

Since the compensation cannot be deemed to have been directly used for the business, the compensation of this case is taxable income of corporate tax.

A disposition rejecting a plaintiff's request for correction on the ground that the plaintiff's request for correction is not excluded (hereinafter referred to as

Among the rejection dispositions, the part concerning the additional tax of this case was "the disposition of this case".

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 1, 3 through 7 (including a branch number for those with a serial number)

The purpose of the whole theory

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) On or before March 31, 2017, the statutory due date of return of the corporate tax for the business year 2016 pursuant to the instant provision, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for a prior answer to the interpretation of the tax law, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service’s request for the supplementation of data.

The answer of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service was made in good faith, and within the statutory due date of return, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service.

The statutory due date of return in the event that the person is waiting to answer the failure to receive the answer shall expire;

The compensation in this case is included in corporate tax income subject to taxation and is reported and paid corporate tax for the business year 2016.

The result is due to the delay in the response of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the Plaintiff into the failure to perform his duty. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful.

2) The instant provision provides that an application for a prior answer to tax law interpretation shall be filed within the statutory due date of return. This may be interpreted to mean that the answer of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service with respect to the said application should be made within the statutory due date of return, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service requested supplementation of the Plaintiff’s prior answer to tax interpretation on January 16, 2017, etc., the Plaintiff was trusted that the Plaintiff would have an answer to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service within the statutory due date of return, and accordingly, the Commissioner of

The income subject to the corporate tax of this case within the statutory due date of return, waiting for the answer.

The disposition of this case was not reported and paid for the business year 2016. Accordingly, the disposition of this case

It is illegal in violation of the good faith principle.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether there exists a justifiable reason

Under the tax law, in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, an additional tax is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the individual tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes, and it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be aware of such obligations, and where there are circumstances that make it difficult for him/her to present his/her legitimate grounds or that it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to expect to fulfill his/her obligations, etc., the imposition may be exempted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4089, Apr. 15, 2005).

The provision of this case only prescribes that the application for a prior answer to tax interpretation should be filed before the statutory due date of return, but it does not stipulate that the answer of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service with respect to the application should be made within the statutory due date of return, and there is no ground to interpret this content, and there is no provision that the deadline of return and payment of corporate tax shall be extended until the response is made in case of an application for a prior answer to tax interpretation of related Acts

Even if it was not clear whether the income subject to taxation was excluded from the income subject to taxation, 2016

The compensation of this case shall be included in the income subject to corporate tax within the statutory due date of return of the business year.

Considering the fact that it is not unreasonable to expect the Plaintiff to perform the duty to report and pay the corporate tax solely on the ground that the Plaintiff reported and paid corporate tax and is waiting for an answer to the interpretation of tax-related Acts, it is difficult to deem that there is a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any justifiable reason for failing to report and pay corporate tax because the instant compensation is included in the income subject to corporate tax within the statutory due date of return of the corporate tax for the business year 2016.

2) Whether the principle of good faith is violated

Generally, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to a tax authority’s act in a tax law relationship, the tax authority should have expressed a public opinion that is the subject of trust to taxpayers (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9575, Sept. 13, 1991). The mere fact that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service demanded the ○○○○○’s preliminary response to tax law interpretation, etc. to supplement it, it is difficult to deem that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service issued a public opinion expressing that ○○○○’s prior response to tax interpretation within the statutory due date of return of corporate tax for the business year 2016, and thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.