법인세등부과처분취소
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Of the instant suit, the Defendant filed against the Plaintiff, attached Form 1.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance are the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasons are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the part exceeding the corrected amount among the dispositions of notification of change in the amount of income reverting to year 2012, the disposition of imposition of corporate tax reverting to year 2012, and the initial disposition of imposition of tax on earned income in the beginning is legitimate
A. We examine the legitimacy of the part of the instant lawsuit, which seeks revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the year 2012 and the notice of change in income amount for the year 2012, ex officio, of the notice of change in income amount for the year 2012 and the disposition imposing corporate tax for the year 2012. 2) In full view of the following: (i) the Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax for the year 2012 to the Defendant on March 29, 2013; (ii) the Daejeon Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the results of reinvestigation on June 5, 2014 based on the Plaintiff’s aforementioned report; (iii) the Daejeon Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant of the change in corporate tax amount for the year 2012 and the amount of corporate tax for the year 2012; and (iv) the fact that it notified the Defendant of the change in income amount for the year 201 and the amount of corporate tax ex officio.
In light of the above facts, based on the corporate tax for year 2012 reported by the Plaintiff, the Defendant calculated the reasonable corporate tax amount and the amount of the notice of change in income amount, and reduced the Plaintiff’s content ex officio, and did not take a separate measure, such as the notice of change in income amount for year 2012 and the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for year 2012.