2. 1/4 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant.

The Defendant’s imposition of penalty tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2011 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of penalty tax of KRW 000 against the plaintiff on July 1, 201 shall be revoked by the defendant.

In the first instance court, the plaintiff sought to revoke the additional tax of KRW 000,000, as stated in the purport of the claim against the defendant, and the court of first instance rejected the plaintiff's claim for revocation in excess of KRW 000,00 among the plaintiff's lawsuits, and dismissed the plaintiff's remaining claims. Accordingly, the plaintiff appealed only for the cancellation of the imposition of additional tax of KRW 000,000 as stated in the purport of the appeal, and this court is to judge only the above.

2. Details of the instant disposition

A. On August 11, 2010, the Plaintiff sold a building on the ground of 1st, 201, and 31st, 201, 201, 201, 201, 200, 200,000,000,000 from January 19, 201 to January 31, 201.

B. The Plaintiff calculated the tax amount of KRW 000 on March 31, 201, and calculated the profit margin of the instant real estate under Articles 69 and 77 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11146, Jan. 1, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) (i.e., the sales price of the instant real estate - KRW 000 - necessary expenses - KRW 0000) as the sales price of the instant real estate (i.e., KRW 35%), and filed a provisional return on the land, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant preliminary return”), and filed an application for a partial payment of KRW 00,000 among them, but did not pay the calculated tax amount.

C. Accordingly, on July 1, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition of imposition of additional tax of 00 won [=00 wonx 82 days (from April 1, 2011, until June 21, 201, when the Defendant calculated additional tax)] x 3/1000 (Article 27-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes) + [ from June 1, 201 to June 21, 201, the first disposition of imposition of additional tax of 3/100 (from June 1, 2011, until June 21, 201)] £« [1] x 21 days (from June 1, 201 to June 21, 201) following the due date of installment payment] (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this, filed an objection with the Gwangju Regional Tax Office on July 29, 201, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 11, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on March 14, 2012.

E. On March 27, 2012, the Defendant imposed an additional tax on the Plaintiff on the amount of KRW 000 calculated on the Plaintiff’s application for correction of the necessary expenses at the time of the instant preliminary return, and on the amount of KRW 000 calculated on the real estate profit (=00 won increased to KRW 000 - necessary expenses) (=35%) and the additional tax on the additional tax for unfaithful payment [the additional tax on the past payment] KRW 000 [the additional tax on the unfaithful payment amount to be calculated = 00 wonx 82 days (from April 1, 2011, until June 21, 201) x 3/100 (Article 27-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes) calculated by the Defendant’s additional tax on the amount of KRW 000 x 21 (from June 21, 2001)] + the above additional tax on the amount of KRW 160/100.61].

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1.3 Eul 1.3 and the purport of the whole pleading

3. Whether the reduced initial disposition in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the provisional return on the return on the return of profit from sale and purchase of land, etc., which is not a "tax standard" under Article 21 (2) 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the tax liability based on the provisional return of this case, is established on December 31, 201, which ends in the taxable period of the plaintiff pursuant to Article 21 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and the tax liability based on the provisional return of this case, is established on May 2012 when the plaintiff files a final return on the global income tax pursuant to Article 22 of the former Framework Act and Article 10-2 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the initial disposition of this case, which was reduced when the plaintiff is imposed on March 3, 201, which is the scheduled return date

(b) Acts and subordinate statutes on the marketing;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Time of establishment of the instant tax liability

A) Article 21(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the obligation to pay the income tax shall come into existence at the end of the taxable period," and Article 21(2)2 of the same Act provides that "the income tax to be paid by the tax association for the income tax or the preliminary return collected by the tax association shall come into existence on the last day of the month in which the amount which is the tax base thereof accrues," and Article 69 of the former Income Tax Act provides that "the income tax to be paid by the tax association shall come into existence on the last day of the month in which the amount is the tax base," and Article 69 of the former Income Tax Act provides that "the profit margin of the real estate dealer on the land or building (hereinafter referred

A report must be filed with the head of the competent tax office. The same shall also apply to cases where there is no profit margin on land, etc. or transaction loss has occurred, and Article 21(2) of the same Act provides that "the return filed under paragraph (1) is "the provisional return on return of profit from the land, etc.", and the time when the tax liability is established following the instant report shall be the last day of January 201 where the purchase price of the real estate in this case subject to the instant report was generated pursuant to Article 2

B) On this issue, the plaintiff, and this case's return are related to "transaction marginal profit" rather than "tax base", and therefore, Article 21 (2) 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is not applied to tax liability. However, the main text of Article 69 (3) of the former Income Tax Act provides that "the calculated tax amount on profit margin on land, etc. of a real estate sales businessman shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the sales price less the necessary expenses calculated by applying Article 97 mutatis mutandis by the tax rate under each subparagraph of Article 104 (1) by the amount calculated by multiplying the tax rate under each subparagraph of Article 104 (1)". Thus, the "profit margin on sale and purchase of the above land, etc." is measured as a monetary value and meets the meaning of the tax base under Article 2 (14) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the provisional return on profit from sale of land, etc. under Article 69 of the former Income Tax Act constitutes the

2) Time when the instant tax liability becomes final and conclusive

In full view of the following circumstances, in which the provisions of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the former Income Tax Act, and the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act are comprehensively interpreted, tax liability arising from provisional return on return of profits, such as soil, shall be paid when the plaintiff files a final return on global income tax on May 2012 pursuant to Article 22 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 10-2 subparagraph

The original disposition of this case, which was reduced under the premise that the Plaintiff’s income tax liability becomes final and conclusive on March 31, 2011, which was the date of the preliminary return of this case, is unlawful.

A) Article 5 (1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that "The taxable period of income tax shall be one year from January 1 to December 31, 190," and the principle of fixed-term taxation is defined as the tax base by adding "all taxable objects" during the taxation period to "all taxable objects", and "individual taxable objects" are collected in advance for the convenience of quota, which is premised on settlement by the final return, and thus, it cannot be said that they have the same confirmation power as in the final return of global income tax, and therefore, it is inconsistent with the above-term taxation principle adopted by the Income Tax Act when recognizing the ability to confirm the provisional return of profit, such as land.

B) In addition, even in cases where a real estate sales businessman carried out provisional return on transfer of land, etc., the real estate sales businessman must make a final return on the tax base of global income (Article 70(1) of the former Income Tax Act), and it cannot be said that the tax base and amount are promptly determined

C) Meanwhile, Article 69 (4) of the former Income Tax Act provides that "Article 107 (2) and Article 114 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation, determination, and correction of the calculated tax amount on profit margin on land, etc.", and Article 114 (1) and (2) of the same Act provides that where a transferor of assets fails to make a preliminary return, the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the director of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall determine the transfer income and the tax amount thereof, and where there are omissions or errors in the details of the return made by the transferor, he shall correct the transfer income tax base and tax amount, but it cannot be concluded that the determination and correction on the same tax amount as above was the final binding force on the preliminary return, and it is reasonable to regard it merely as a policy means

D) In addition, the main sentence of Article 47-5(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) (amended by Act No. 9911) provides that "where a taxpayer fails to pay a national tax by the due date or falls short of the payable amount, an amount calculated by applying the following formula shall be added to the payable tax amount or deducted from the payable tax amount," and Article 47-5(5) provides that "in applying paragraphs 1 and 2, an additional tax (limited to the portion on which an additional tax is imposed in relation to the payment by the preliminary return) related to the payment by the final return shall not be imposed in any of the following cases," while subparagraph 1 provides that "where an additional tax is imposed in relation to the payment by the provisional return, such as land under Article 69 of the Income Tax Act, the imposition of the additional tax by the preliminary return can not be the basis for establishing the scheduled return amount immediately.

E) Meanwhile, Article 12-3(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides for the date on which national taxes, such as income tax, can be imposed, except for the time limit for the preliminary return, and it clearly states that the time limit for the preliminary return expires that the original income tax liability cannot be deemed to have been established, and therefore, it is logical and logical that granting the power to determine the preliminary return payment is not established.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition (the part of the claim for money was excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court because the plaintiff did not appeal as stated in paragraph (1)) and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so decided as to accept the plaintiff's appeal and revoke it and order the defendant to revoke it as described in paragraph (1) of this case.