가산세 산출근거가 불분명한 경우 절차상 하자로 볼 수 있는지 여부[국패]
Daegu District Court 2015Guhap21133 ( November 25, 2015)
Whether the basis for calculation of additional tax can be seen as a procedural defect if it is unclear.
If the unpaid penalty tax is not specifically stated by the due date of payment, it is reasonable to view that there is a defect that does not properly state the grounds for the calculation of the penalty tax.
(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) The contents of the judgment are as attached.
Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act
2015Nu756 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
OO
O Head of tax office
Daegu District Court Decision 2015Guhap21133 Decided November 25, 2015
June 10, 2016
July 8, 2016
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
1. Purport of claim
Defendant’s transfer income tax amounting to KRW 213,783,340 for the Plaintiff on March 6, 2014 (Additional Tax)
77,211,959 won (including won) shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
In the judgment of the first instance court against the defendant, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the above revocation
section 3.
The court's explanation about the instant case is the same as the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
Ro, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
(c)
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.
It is so decided as per Disposition.