2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of penalty tax of KRW 9,290,876 and penalty tax of KRW 15,943,144 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2015 shall be revoked, respectively.

A. On April 30, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of an agreement on the acquisition of land for public use with respect to the DED-dong 6996-6 forest land (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On May 12, 2009, the Plaintiff received KRW 398,505,000 as compensation, and did not file a return of capital gains tax by May 31, 2010, the final return of capital gains tax on April 30, 2014. After all, the Plaintiff filed a return after the deadline for the transfer income tax of the instant real estate, and paid the amount of tax, but did not file a return and pay penalty tax in bad faith and bad faith payment.

B. Around October 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the notice of imposition of penalty tax for nonperformance of reporting the transfer income of the instant real estate and penalty tax for nonperformance of payment. On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Defendant on October 24, 2014, but received a non-adopted decision on December 3, 2014. On February 1, 2015, the Defendant imposed penalty tax amounting to KRW 9,290,876 and penalty tax amounting to KRW 15,943,144 on the Plaintiff’s failure to report the transfer income tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 11, 2015, but was dismissed on May 29, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-4, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff was expropriated three times, and the tax authority first notified the plaintiff of the transfer income tax in the case of expropriation 1 and 2, the public official ofCC asked the plaintiff to be exempted from the tax in the case of third expropriation, and the plaintiff filed a return after the deadline and paid it to the defendant after becoming aware that the tax should be paid the transfer income tax. According to Article 45-3 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, when filing a return of tax base after the deadline, the head of the competent tax office must determine the tax base and tax amount of the relevant national tax within three months from the date of filing the return. However, considering that the tax authority made the disposition of this case more than three months after the deadline of the plaintiff's return, the disposition of this case was unlawful since there is a justifiable reason for the failure of the plaintiff

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims under the tax law, a taxpayer’s intentional or negligent act is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the Act in cases where a taxpayer violates a tax return and tax liability under the Act without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intentional or negligent act is not considered as a justifiable reason. Moreover, even if a taxpayer has believed a tax official’s erroneous explanation and failed to perform his/her duty to report and pay taxes, if it is evident that it is contrary to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such reason alone does not constitute a justifiable reason (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10350, Sept. 24, 2004).

In light of the above legal principles and the facts acknowledged as seen earlier, ① the Plaintiff is deemed to have been well aware of the existence of the obligation to pay capital gains tax due to expropriation because it had already been paid the capital gains tax on more than two occasions, ② there is no evidence to prove that the public officials ofCC informed the Plaintiff that taxes will be exempted in the case of the third expropriation. ③ Article 45-3(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “A person who fails to file a tax base return by the statutory due date of return may file a tax base return within the due date until the head of the competent district tax office determines and notifies the tax base and amount of the relevant national tax (including additional tax under this Act and other tax-related Acts; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) pursuant to the tax law,” and Article 45-3(3) provides that “Where a tax base return after the due date of return under paragraph (1) (if there is any amount of tax payable, it is limited to the payment thereof) shall be determined within three months from the due date of the tax law.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.