기납부세액 공제는 당초 처분의 직권취소가 아님[국승]
Seoul Central District Court-2017-Gohap-53186 ( December 20, 2017)
Tax credit is not an ex officio revocation of the initial disposition.
With respect to the capital gains tax reported and paid by the taxpayer, the tax authority imposed the global income tax after deducting the amount of the capital gains tax reported and paid by the taxpayer from the amount of the capital gains tax paid by the global income tax, but the additional notice was issued, but the tax amount paid within the scope of the refund
2018Na2005261 Undue gains
1. KimA
2. B B.
Korea
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gahap533186 Decided December 20, 2017
May 31, 2018
June 21, 2018
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall be 4.2% per annum from 2.3 to 2.4.5% per annum from 2.4.5% per annum from 2.1 to 3.5% per annum from 2.4.5% per annum from 3.5% per annum from 2.1 to 3.5% per annum from 2.5% per annum until 2.5% per annum from 3.5% per annum from 2.5% per annum from 3.4 to 3.5% per annum, and from 1.5% per annum from 2.8% per annum until 3.5% per annum from 2.5% per annum from 3.4 to 2.5% per annum, and from 1.8% per annum from 2.5% per annum from 3.4 to 2.5% per annum, until 2.5% per annum from 2.5% per annum, and from 3.5% until 2.5% per annum from 20.13.13.4 to 2.5% per annum
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasons for this court shall be determined by the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as described in paragraph 2 below.
Since the reasons are the same as the entry of the reasons, they are quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be removed or added;
A. The 5th 13th 14th 2th 14th 14th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 20
Since it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs’ claim for refund of KRW 290,906,096 and KRW 231,765,014 paid by Plaintiff Kim Young-B as the transfer income tax for the year 2006 is due to the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of KRW 231,765,014, the Plaintiffs’ assertion cannot be accepted. As such, even if the portion belonging to the year 2006 was deducted as part of the global income tax for the year 2009 under the condition that the transfer income tax for the year 206 was corrected as KRW 0,00,000, the amount of each tax for the Defendant’s collection convenience is to reduce the burden on the taxpayers and to promote the Defendant’s collection convenience, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs paid the comprehensive income tax for each of the above taxes for the year 206, and it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs’ additional tax for the year 2006 as the transfer income tax for the year 2006.
Meanwhile, in the decision of the above Supreme Court, "Plaintiff Kim 981,982,210 won" in the decision of the above Supreme Court is a clerical error of "Plaintiff Kim Ge-A 290,906,096 won" and "Plaintiff Park Ge-B 54,420,960 won" is a clerical error of "Plaintiff Park Ge-B231,765,014 won", and the above decision should be interpreted to clearly determine that each of the above tax amount paid to the plaintiffs should be refunded to the plaintiffs. However, there is no ground to regard the above amount as a clerical error, and the above decision merely clearly confirms that the tax amount to be refunded to the plaintiffs is kind of additional tax amount to be refunded to the plaintiff 2,90,906,09, and the reason why the above decision is interpreted as 90,000 won, "the above additional tax amount to be paid to the plaintiff Kim G-B 981,292,400,00 won" should be viewed as the above additional tax amount paid.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.