법인세 부과처분 무효확인 등
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.
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 the second instance court's ruling as follows. Thus, this case is quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Article 120-2 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "in addition to the provisions of Section 10 No. 3 of the judgment of the first instance court," and Article 120-2 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that Article 164 of the Income Tax Act concerning delegation of payment records shall apply mutatis mutandis to the submission of payment statements, so it is difficult for the first instance court to do so as follows (in this respect, the defendant's assertion that Article 98 (11) of the Corporate Tax Act is confirmatory provision is not accepted). Even if the National Tax Service presented Article 73 (4) of the Corporate Tax Act concerning the vicarious payment of withholding duties by a foreign corporation before Article 98 (11) of the Corporate Tax Act was newly established, it cannot be said that the above provision is applied mutatis mutandis to the foreign corporation's domestic source income.
From 209 to 2009 to 2010, the defendant's side asserts that the plaintiff's obligation to withhold the remaining user fee is against the principle of good faith, and that the plaintiff's assertion that the withholding agent is not a withholding agent is against the principle of good faith.
The first sentence of Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "a taxpayer shall faithfully and faithfully perform his/her duty," and the principle of trust and good faith in relation to the tax law, which is strongly affected by the principle of legality, shall be limited to cases where it is deemed necessary to protect specific trust even if the taxpayer sacrifices the legality.