2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The part of the imposition of the global income tax imposed by the Defendant against OO.O.O. Plaintiff OO. is revoked.

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the OOO.O.O.O.O.O.O.O. (hereinafter referred to as "transferor") to acquire the sales rights of the △△△△△△ branch located in OO-dong OO-dong OO, and paid the transfer price to the transferor up to the OO.O.O.O., and the transferor paid the transfer price.

B. Although the acquisition price of the instant goodwill paid by the Plaintiff to the transferor constitutes other income under Article 21(1)7 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13282, May 13, 2015; hereinafter “Income Tax Act”), the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff on the OOO.O.O. on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to perform its duty to withhold taxes and to submit a statement of payment (OO.S. additional tax for failure to pay withholding tax and additional tax for failure to pay withholding tax) for the OO year (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but OO.O.O.O. was dismissed.

D. On the other hand, while the transferor filed a comprehensive income tax for the OO year, the transferor filed a return on the amount of OO won after deducting 80% of the necessary expenses from the OO won for the transfer of this case.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The purpose of imposing the obligation to submit a statement of payment on the withholding agent is to secure tax revenue through the collection and identification of taxation data, and as long as the transferor has already reported and paid other income based on the acquisition price of this case and had already been identified as taxation data related to the above acquisition price and secured tax revenue, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff has the obligation to withhold tax and to submit a statement of payment. Thus, the disposition of this case prior to this different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 21 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that "other income is income other than interest income, dividend income, business income, labor income, annuity income, retirement income, and capital gains as follows." subparagraph 7 provides that "mining rights, fishing rights, industrial property rights, industrial information, industrial secrets, trademark rights, and business rights (including the right to lease a store prescribed by Presidential Decree), rights following permission to collect earth, sand, and rock, rights following permission to develop and lease underground water, and money and valuables received in return for such transfer or lease."

Meanwhile, Article 127 (1) 6 of the Income Tax Act provides that "any person who pays other income to a resident or a nonresident in the Republic of Korea shall withhold income tax from such resident or nonresident pursuant to the provisions of this Section, and Article 164 (1) 6 of the Income Tax Act provides that "any person who pays other income to an individual liable to pay income tax in the Republic of Korea pursuant to Article 2 shall submit a statement of payment to the head of the competent tax office, the director of a regional tax office, or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by the end of February of the year following the taxable period in which the

Furthermore, Article 81 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act provides that "where a person obligated to submit a statement of payment pursuant to Article 164 and Article 164-2 of the Income Tax Act or Article 120 and Article 120-2 of the Corporate Tax Act fails to do so by the deadline, an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the amount paid (where a statement of payment is submitted within three months after the deadline for submission, it shall be 1/100 of the amount paid) shall be added to the amount of final tax."

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above provision of the Income Tax Act, the above-mentioned facts, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff is liable to pay additional tax for the failure to submit a statement of payment under Article 81 (1) 4 of the Income Tax Act, insofar as the Plaintiff did not submit a statement of payment related to the payment of the acquisition price of this case. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is legitimate, and the Plaintiff

① Since the Plaintiff’s transfer price paid to the transferor constitutes “money and valuables received in return for transfer of business rights” under Article 21(1)7 of the Income Tax Act, the Plaintiff is obligated to withhold taxes and submit a statement of payment in relation to the payment of the above transfer price pursuant to Articles 127(1)6 and 164(1)6 of the Income Tax Act. However, the Plaintiff did not submit a statement of payment to the Defendant in relation to the payment of the transfer price.

② Article 214(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26982, Feb. 17, 2016) and Article 97 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 479, Mar. 13, 2015) stipulate that the income exempt from the obligation to submit a statement of payment is restricted. The instant transfer price does not fall under the foregoing, and there is no justifiable reason to deem that there is no justifiable reason to impose penalty tax on the Plaintiff on the part of failing to submit a statement of payment related to the instant transfer price.

③ The Plaintiff asserts that, in the event that a withholding agent fails to withhold taxes and the income subject to withholding is already included in the tax base returned and paid by the taxpayer, only the amount of penalty taxes under Article 47-5(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be collected. As long as the transferor has reported and paid the comprehensive income tax for OOO year based on the acquisition price of the instant case, the Plaintiff is only liable to collect penalty taxes for failure to pay withholding taxes under Article 47-5(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and does not bear liability for failure to pay additional taxes. However, the proviso to Article 85(3) of the Income Tax Act provides that, if the income subject to withholding which the withholding agent has already reported and paid by the taxpayer is included in the tax base amount subject to withholding taxes, the withholding agent is not required to collect the amount to be collected from the withholding agent under the main sentence of the said Article, and it cannot be said that the withholding agent is exempt from liability for failure to submit additional taxes due to the payment record.

④ In addition, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, insofar as the transferor reported and paid other income based on the acquisition price of this case and had already been identified as taxation data related to the above acquisition price and secured tax revenues, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff had a duty to submit a statement of payment. In such a case, deeming that a withholding agent has a duty to submit a statement of payment, and imposing additional tax as it violates the principle of excessive prohibition, as it constitutes unnecessary cooperative obligation, and that, as long as the Plaintiff did not bear a duty to collect withholding tax on the acquisition price of this case due to the transferor’s filing and payment of global income tax, the Plaintiff does not have a duty to pay additional tax under the Income Tax Act. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the duty to submit a statement of payment is a duty to cooperate with the head of the competent tax office in order to promote the understanding of the tax office’s easy source of income and the objectivity of transaction, and that Article 81(15) of the Income Tax Act stipulates that the duty to submit a statement of payment varies regardless of the principal duty to submit a statement of payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.