Section B (the date of the written disposition in the complaint seems to be a clerical error).

This court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

The part between 12 and 15 of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows. “Afterward, the Plaintiffs filed a final return on June 30, 2016 on the sales of the instant heading room to the Defendant under Articles 70 and 70-2 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 15225, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”), with respect to the sales of the instant heading room under Articles 70 and 70-2 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 15225, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”).

○○ The first instance court’s judgment was 20 pages 20, 3 pages 1, 2016, and 3 pages 1. “Around October 30, 2016” were “Around October 14, 2016 and around October 30, 2016.”

○○ The “ April 24, 2017.” in the 3th 8th h 8th e.g., the “2017. Apr. 20, 2017.” The “transfer income tax” in the 21st e.g., the 3th e., the “1st e., April 2017.”

3. The addition;

(a) Whether an additional tax cannot be imposed following the provisional return on return and failure to pay taxes after the final return on global income tax base is filed;

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

After a real estate sales businessman files a final return of global income tax base with respect to a real estate sales businessman who did not make a provisional return of profits, such as land, before the tax authority determines profit margin and amount of tax, the tax authority cannot determine and notify the profit margin and amount of tax as long as the effect related to the provisional return of profits ceases to exist, and the collection disposition based on this cannot be made. As such, the imposition of additional tax on the ground that the real estate sales businessman failed to pay the amount of profit margin and the amount of tax calculated on the profit margin (hereinafter referred

2) Determination

In full view of all relevant laws and regulations, even if the plaintiffs, who are real estate brokers, filed a final return on global income tax base, it is legitimate to impose the penalty tax in this case on the ground of such breach of duty, as long as they failed to perform the obligation to pay provisional return on

The grounds are as follows:

① The former Income Tax Act amended by Act No. 11611 on January 1, 2013 stipulated that “the real estate sales businessman shall report the profit margin on land, etc. and its tax amount by the date on which two months elapse from the last day of the month in which the sale date of land, etc. falls,” and Article 69(4) of the former Income Tax Act newly established the same type as that of Article 69(1) of the former Income Tax Act, which provides that “the real estate sales businessman shall pay the calculated tax amount on the profit margin on land, etc. by the provisional return return deadline.” Accordingly, the obligation of the real

② Under the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return under the tax-related Acts, including a preliminary return by the statutory due date of return, an additional tax shall be imposed (Article 47-2). If a taxpayer fails to pay a national tax by the due date under the tax-related Acts, including a preliminary return payment, an additional tax shall be imposed (Article 47-4). Such tax under the tax law is an administrative sanction imposed in cases where a taxpayer violates a tax return, tax liability, etc. as prescribed by the Act without justifiable grounds in order to facilitate the exercise of the tax authority and the realization of a tax claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du7876, Jan. 30, 2001). In cases of provisional return on profit-making, such as land, the additional tax may be imposed on the ground that the other final return is scheduled to be made and its effect is temporary.

③ The imposition of penalty tax on the ground of the provisional return on the return of profit from land, etc. and the nonperformance of the duty to pay taxes cannot be deemed as premised on the determination and correction of the profit margin and the amount of tax by the tax authorities pursuant to Articles 69(5) and (6), 114(1) and (2) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 129(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. As such, the tax authorities cannot determine and correct profit margin and the amount of tax related to the provisional return on the return of profit from land, etc. after the expiration of the final return of global income tax base. From that time, even if the tax authorities have no choice but to determine and correct the global income tax base and the

④ Even if a real estate sales broker’s final return on the provisional return of profit from land, etc. and the amount of tax temporarily determined by filing a final return on the tax base of global income tax is absorption of the tax base and the amount of tax determined according to the final return on the global income tax base, the effect of the provisional return on profit from sale of land, etc. and the nonperformance of the duty to pay, or the obligation

B. The plaintiffs' assertion that imposing penalty tax is unconstitutional on the ground of the provisional return on profit-making and non-performance of payment

A) The real estate sales businessman determined the tax base and tax amount only by the final return of the global income tax base after the lapse of the taxable period. The instant disposition imposing additional tax to the same extent as the failure to pay the final return and payment is in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition.

B) The instant disposition imposing penalty tax on an individual entrepreneur who carries out real estate sales business requires the provisional return and payment of profits accruing from the sale of goods, and imposes penalty tax on the nonperformance of such obligation on a real estate sales businessman without reasonable grounds compared with any other individual entrepreneur who has no obligation to make such preliminary return and payment, and the real estate sales businessman discriminates against a real estate sales businessman without reasonable grounds. The instant disposition is in violation of the principle of equality, since the real estate sales businessman who has made a final return and payment of global income tax base and the final return and payment of global income tax base are treated the same as

2) Determination

A) Whether the principle of excessive prohibition is violated

The purpose of the legislation is to ensure the effectiveness of the provisional return and payment system that aims to secure the tax revenue early and to promote the efficiency of collection by having the tax amount paid in advance in connection with the sale and purchase transaction of land, etc., and further to reduce the administrative power of the country to be invested in order to determine and collect the tax liability and prevent the failure to violate the reported tax liability.

Furthermore, in order to achieve these legislative purposes, it is also appropriate to impose an additional tax on a person who has violated the duty to file a return on provisional return, and impose an additional tax on a person who has failed to pay provisional return on provisional return.

In addition to the provisions of Articles 70 and 70-2, the former Income Tax Act basically provides for a real estate sales businessman with the obligation to make a final return and pay global income tax base (Article 69), and the obligation to make a interim prepayment (Article 65). However, with respect to the portion on which penalty tax is imposed in relation to the preliminary return and payment, penalty tax related to the final return and payment is not applied or during the interim prepayment period (Articles 47-2(5) and 47-4(5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

In addition, in cases of additional tax returns on land or buildings sold, it is adjusted so as not to put double tax payment at a disadvantage (Article 65(10) of the former Income Tax Act). In addition, in cases of additional tax on negligent tax returns, additional tax is imposed on the basis of the unreported amount, and in cases of additional tax on negligent tax, additional tax is imposed in proportion to the length of the period during which the unpaid amount was not paid. As such, the degree of breach of duty and sanctions are reasonable balance between the degree of breach of duty and sanctions, and the disadvantage suffered by the taxpayer is limited to the extent that it infringes on the public interest and is considerably larger than the public interest. Furthermore, if there are special circumstances that it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fulfill his/her duty, the taxpayer may assert the exemption of additional tax on the ground that there is a justifiable reason by filing a lawsuit with the court (Article 48(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Thus, it cannot be deemed that imposing additional tax on the ground of a violation of the minimum amount of profit or the principle of balance of legal interests.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion that the disposition of this case violated the excessive prohibition principle and infringed the plaintiffs' property rights is without merit.

B) Whether the principle of equality is violated

Today, there is a wide range of right to form a tax law for various policy purposes other than the unique purpose of securing national financial resources (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2016HunBa143, Sept. 28, 2017). The former Income Tax Act separates transfer income tax on a resident who transfers land and a building, while the income of a real estate sales businessman who sells a building is classified as business income and imposed comprehensive taxation. The two are different categories of income, and the transaction object is the same as land, building, land and building, and building can contribute to the maintenance of real estate transaction order, prevention of speculation, etc. by strengthening taxation on profit margin, and thus, the transfer income tax and payment system (Article 105 and Article 106 of the former Income Tax Act) shall only apply to a real estate sales businessman, and it cannot be deemed that there is no reasonable reason to discriminate against other personal real estate sales businessmen without reasonable grounds.

In addition, even in the case of a profit-making corporation, there is no obligation to make provisional return and payment, and thus there is no difference with an individual entrepreneur. However, in the case of an individual entrepreneur, it can easily avoid tax burden by consuming or concealing property, etc., while in the case of a profit-making corporation, criminal liability such as embezzlement, or separate disposition of income can be made with regard to the outflow of corporate property (Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act). Thus, it cannot be said that there is no reasonable ground on the ground that only the individual entrepreneur engaged in real estate sales separately provided the obligation to make provisional

Meanwhile, since a real estate sales broker who filed a final return and payment of global income tax base did not impose an additional tax on the grounds that he/she failed to pay the global income tax, it cannot be deemed that the real estate sales broker who filed a final return and payment of global income tax base under the former Income Tax Act and the Framework Act on National Taxes did not make both the provisional return and payment of the provisional return and the final return and payment of the global income tax base, but the real estate sales broker who filed a final return and payment based on the global income tax base return and payment cannot be deemed to be treated equally (Article 1520 of the Framework Act on National Taxes was amended on December 19, 2017 by Act No. 15220, and did not make a preliminary return, but a provision that reduces the additional tax without filing a tax base return (Article 48(2)3 (d) of the Framework Act on National Taxes) where a tax return was made by the final return deadline, the same applies even if there was

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the appeal by the plaintiffs is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.