종합소득세과세처분무효확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for modification or addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Details to be corrected or added;
(a) Change “each entry” to “each entry and testimony of the witness F of the first instance trial” in the 6-17th page of the judgment of the court of first instance.
(b)in addition, between conduct 7, 9 and 10 of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added:
4) The Plaintiff asserts further as follows: (a) the amendment of the Framework Act on National Taxes on December 22, 1994, when the collection of illegal income as in the instant case was completed, the instant disposition imposing a comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff is null and void, despite the fact that it constitutes grounds for subsequent correction. (b) The Plaintiff rendered the en banc Decision 2014Du5514 Decided July 16, 2015, stating that “If the collection of tax on illegal income was completed after the establishment of the tax liability, it constitutes grounds for subsequent request for correction,” the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission on February 15, 2016, and filed a subsequent request for correction on September 16, 2015, after which the Plaintiff received the request for information disclosure and received the response, and subsequently filed a subsequent request for correction with the Defendant within two months, and subsequently filed a civil petition on March 16, 2016.
First of all, in order for the above argument to be invalidated, as seen earlier, the defect should be objectively apparent to have been significant. However, it can be seen that the defect of the previous income tax imposition disposition was significant and apparent, on the ground that the statutory interpretation on whether it falls under the grounds for post-explosion correction has been modified.