종합소득세부과처분취소
1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of global income tax of KRW 104,271,560 for the Plaintiff on June 2, 2014, 89,368, which reverts to the Plaintiff for the year 2008.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. As a result of the Plaintiff’s tax investigation (the global income tax for the year 2008-2012) from April 2, 2014 to May 10, 2014, the commissioner of the Daegu Regional Tax Office found the Plaintiff’s failure to report the amount of KRW 1.8 billion in total (i.e., KRW 180 million in total, each year of 2008 and 2009, KRW 185 million in total, and KRW 60 million in total, KRW 2011, KRW 60 million in total, and notified the Defendant thereof.
B. Accordingly, on June 2, 2014 and the 10th of the same month, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of KRW 1,031,149,250 for global income tax for the year 208 through 2012, including the penalty tax for unlawful underreporting, as indicated below, as follows:
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The notice of tax amount (including additional tax) for the year to which the disposition date belongs shall be issued, and the amount of additional tax for unfair underreporting (including additional tax) KRW 19,870,640, 208 KRW 198,082,010, KRW 19,483,850, KRW 109,364,580, KRW 109,368,320, KRW 2011322,45,270, KRW 76,270, KRW 76,770, KRW 217, KRW 975, KRW 368, KRW 208, KRW 20820, KRW 19,483, KRW 850, June 10, 2014, KRW 109,364, KRW 109,365, KRW 201, KRW 368,200, KRW 1305,2945, KRW 2005.
C. On August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the above disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the decision on December 10, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 2-1-5, Eul evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 11-1, Eul evidence 12-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. It was true that the Plaintiff asserted omitted the report of the interest income of this case. However, as a result of the deliberation by the Tax Offense Investigation Review Committee, it was recognized that the Plaintiff did not omit the report of the interest income by fraud or other unlawful acts. Since the Plaintiff received both the interest income of this case and its principal as the passbook in the name of the Plaintiff, the Defendant applied the penalty tax for unlawful underreporting (40%) instead of the general underreporting (10%) to the Plaintiff