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

Cheong-gu Office

On March 10, 2015, the Defendant revoked the imposition of global income tax of KRW 0,00,000 for the Plaintiff in the year 2011.

A. From August 9, 2008, the Plaintiff is a person who runs a real estate sales business under the trade name, "D industry development" from Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-dong 000-00.

B. The Plaintiff newly built a commercial building on the ground of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 000-00 and built a commercial building on May 31, 2011, November 18, 201 of the same year, and December 19 of the same year (hereinafter referred to as the “instant commercial building”) and sold the commercial building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant sales”) on three occasions, such as as as shown in the attached Table 1 of the same year, on November 30, 201, and did not make an interim prepayment under Article 65(5) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11146, Jan. 1, 201; hereinafter referred to as the “former Income Tax Act”) at KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 0,00,000 or more interim prepayment tax return, interim prepayment tax return.

C. On April 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) determined the total final tax amount under Article 82 of the former Income Tax Act as KRW 0,000,000 on the ground that: (b) the Plaintiff’s prior claim such as provisional attachment was difficult to secure tax claims; and (c) the Plaintiff intentionally filed a return of the total revenue amount excessively (the prior appropriated amount to be refunded through a subsequent request for correction) on the grounds of the preferential repayment of tax obligations; and (d) the Plaintiff intentionally intended to obtain a refund; and (b) the instant interim prepayment estimated return was excessive; and (c) accordingly, the Defendant determined the global income tax amount for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant occasional assessment”).

D. From November 3, 2014 to December 20, 2014, the National Tax Service audited the SS regional tax office’s internal audit. As a result of audit, the Plaintiff verified that real estate dealer omitted preliminary return of profit margin, such as land, and notified the Defendant of relevant taxation data. Accordingly, on March 10, 2015, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of global income tax (additional tax and additional tax for arrears)0,000,000 won for the year 201 (hereinafter “the initial disposition”).

E. On June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on June 22, 2015, and the Tax Tribunal omitted the Plaintiff’s preliminary return on the Plaintiff’s assertion on October 22, 2015, but the portion transferred on November 18, 201, 201, excluding the portion transferred on May 31, 201 by filing an interim prepayment return within the period for provisional return, should be deemed to have made a preliminary return on the profit margin. Therefore, the imposition of additional tax on December 19 of the same year is without merit, but it is not reasonable to conclude that “the imposition of additional tax is unlawful” was not appropriated as the necessary expense when calculating the profit margin of the commercial building of this case, and it is reasonable for the Defendant to re-examine the acquisition value of the commercial building of this case and the payment of sales agency fees, etc., to correct the tax base and tax amount according to the results of re-audit, and dismiss the remaining tax base and tax amount.

F. After conducting a reinvestigation according to the review decision of the Tax Tribunal on December 23, 2015, the Defendant reduced the amount of KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000 for global income tax for the first year 201 as global income tax for the first year of 2011, as total as KRW 00,000,000,000 for additional tax for unfaithful payment, and KRW 0,00,00,000 for additional tax for the past year (hereinafter “instant disposition”). (The disposition of imposition of KRW 0,00,000,000 for global income tax remaining after reduction as above in the initial disposition of this case).

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff did not make a preliminary return of profit margin, it can be deemed that the preliminary return of profit margin was made by filing a preliminary return of interim prepayment within the period of the preliminary return of profit margin, and the Defendant cannot impose an additional tax on the Plaintiff by making a decision of occasional assessment under Article 82(1) of the former Income Tax Act, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

1) The interim prepayment system under Article 65 of the former Income Tax Act provides that when a resident makes a lump sum payment of annual income tax, the taxpayer suffers economic difficulties due to the lump sum payment of the tax amount in the taxpayer's side, and the Government makes a partial payment due to the difficulty in securing tax claims. Article 65 (5) of the former Income Tax Act provides that "Where a resident who has no interim prepayment standard amount, which is the income tax on global income in the immediately preceding taxable period, has global income during the relevant taxable period, there is global income during the period of interim prepayment, the taxpayer shall report the estimated amount of interim prepayment to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment as the interim prepayment during the period from November 1 to November 30, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." On the other hand, where a real estate sales broker sells real estate, the scheduled return system, such as profit margin on land, etc. under Article 69 of the former Income Tax Act, is to make a voluntary payment of the return and tax amount on land, etc. by the second month from the end

In this case, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that there was no interim prepayment base amount for the year 2010 that was the immediately preceding taxable period in 2011; and (b) reported the estimation of the instant interim prepayment on November 30, 201; (c) however, as a real estate broker for the instant sales over three occasions, such as May 31, 201; (d) November 18; and (e) December 19, 201 of the same year, each of the two months following the end of the month in which the date of sale falls; (b) was liable to make a preliminary return of profit margin until the end of the month in which the date of sale falls; and (c) failed to comply with the scheduled return of profit margin until February 29 of the same year. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was liable to pay the amount equivalent to the calculated income tax under Article 20-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes from the following day to the date of failure to make a preliminary return of profit margin as a real estate broker for the instant sales.

2) Furthermore, in a case where income tax adopts the period and tax, and in principle, it is reasonable to determine the tax liability after the expiration of the taxable period, or where there is an urgent reason to enable the tax claim to be lost by the due date for final return, the tax authority may exercise the right to impose early taxation by making a decision of occasional assessment before the due date or the due date for final return arrives. The Defendant’s decision of occasional assessment under Article 82(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act on April 2, 2012 was made after the date of the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty to return profit margin, and thus, the obligation to pay the unpaid additional tax arising from the excess of the due date for final return cannot be deemed as extinguished

3) Meanwhile, Article 65 (10) of the former Income Tax Act provides that where a real estate sales broker makes a preliminary return and payment of profit margin on land or buildings sold during the period of interim prepayment pursuant to Article 69, an amount calculated by subtracting the amount returned and paid from the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the base amount for interim prepayment under paragraph (1) shall be the interim prepayment. In this case, where the provisional return and payment of profit margin on land, etc. exceeds 1/2 of the base amount for interim prepayment, interim prepayment shall be deemed nonexistent. According to the above provision, if a real estate sales broker makes a preliminary return and payment of profit margin on land, etc., the interim prepayment amount shall be reduced, and the obligation to make a preliminary return shall not be exempted by the real estate sales broker by filing a provisional return on interim prepayment (no evidence exists to deem that there is justifiable reason for the Plaintiff

4) Therefore, the obligation to report interim prepayment under Article 65 of the former Income Tax Act and the obligation to make a preliminary return of profit margin under Article 69 of the same Act are distinct. The Defendant imposes penalty tax on the basis of the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the obligation to make a preliminary return of profit margin, and the instant occasional assessment determination was made after the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the obligation to make a preliminary return of profit margin, which does not affect the imposition of penalty tax on non

3. Conclusion

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