1. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not have an obligation to pay the remainder of capital gains tax and local income tax, excluding the amount equivalent to capital gains tax calculated on the premise that the Plaintiff should pay the amount equivalent to the capital gains tax and local income tax incurred from the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff. Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of the capital gains tax and the amount equivalent to the local income tax incurred by the instant sales contract for the portion that the Plaintiff failed to file a return and pay within the time limit set by the Income Tax Act and the Local Tax Act, but, on the ground that only the amount equivalent to the additional charges set forth in subparagraphs 5-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 5-2 falls under

However, such determination by the lower court is difficult to accept as is.

The Defendant’s non-reported and non-paid additional taxes asserted that the Plaintiff should be deducted from the amount equivalent to the amount of the tax to be paid to the Plaintiff are based on the premise that the Plaintiff was unable to make a return and payment within the time limit. If the amount claimed by the Plaintiff includes each of the above additional taxes, the above additional taxes should be deducted even

According to the records, on December 30, 2013, when the preliminary return period has elapsed, the Plaintiff filed a transfer income tax and local income tax return, including non-reported additional taxes and non-paid additional taxes, on the premise that the Plaintiff constitutes one house for one household under the Plaintiff’s name, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid transfer income tax and local income tax exceeding the above reported amount. Considering the above circumstances, the Plaintiff underreporting after the preliminary return period has expired, and the tax authority deemed that the Plaintiff additionally imposed transfer income tax, etc. on the Plaintiff, so there is room for including non-reported additional taxes and non-paid additional taxes.

Therefore, the lower court should have deliberated on whether each of the above additional charges, other than the above additional charges, was included in the amount paid by the Plaintiff and the amount thereof, and determined whether to deduct the amount. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on capital gains tax and local income tax, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Go Young-young

Chief Justice Cho Jae-hee

Justices Kim Jong-il