[법인세등부과처분취소][공1982.1.15.(672),77]
If a procedure for filing an objection, requesting an examination, or requesting an adjudication on a disposition imposing corporate tax is completed, whether a request for examination, or requesting an adjudication on a disposition imposing Class A earned income after the above filing is filed based on the same corporate income.
After filing an objection against the disposition of imposition of corporate tax and defense tax, Class A earned income tax and defense tax were imposed on the same corporation income, and the examination request and trial request regarding the decision to dismiss the above objection were dismissed, but if the subject of the above examination and trial request are not clear only on the basis of the written decision, it shall be deemed that the party sought an explanation.
Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 9 of the Administrative Litigation Act
same-sex Construction Company
The litigation performer in lease of the director of the tax office.
Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu161 delivered on December 16, 1980
1. Of the judgment below, the part of the court below's rejection of the lawsuit demanding revocation of the disposition imposing Class A's earned income tax and the same defense tax is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
2. The remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff are dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff.
1. First, we examine the ground of appeal on the Plaintiff’s revocation of disposition imposing Class A earned income tax on May 8, 1979.
The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the above disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any trace of going through the procedure of pre-sale, such as a request for review and a request for trial.
According to the records, the plaintiff was subject to the disposition of imposition of corporate tax and defense tax in this case on February 28, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of imposition of corporate tax"), and again, was subject to the disposition of imposition of Class A earned income tax and defense tax in this case (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of imposition of Class A tax"). The plaintiff filed an objection against the disposition of imposition of corporate tax with the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on April 30 of that year, but the decision of rejection was made against the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on May 28 of that year, and the plaintiff filed an objection against the Commissioner of the National Tax Office on August 13 of that year, 1979, and then filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on October 13 of that year, 1980, which was dismissed on January 12, 1980. The court below held that the above request for evaluation and request for adjudication were only filed, and that the disposition of imposition of Class A was not subject to the prior disposition procedure
However, it is clear that the above objection is filed prior to the imposition of the corporation tax and it is against the imposition of the corporation tax. However, whether the subsequent request for review or adjudgment only pertains to the imposition of the corporation tax, or is subject to the imposition of the corporation tax, is based on the income of the same corporation. Therefore, it is not clear that both the two dispositions are based on the same corporate income. Therefore, the court below should have clarified what the object of the above review and the request for review is the imposition of the corporation tax (the disposition of the corporation tax must be included in the above request for review and the request for review) although the court below should have clarified what kind of object of the imposition of the corporation tax is the object of the above review and the request for review (the disposition of the corporation tax must be included in the above request for review and the request for review based on the data attached to the supplemental appellate brief). However,
2. Next, we examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal on the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of imposition of corporate tax.
The court below acknowledged the fact that the real estate of this case was owned by the Dongdong Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and the plaintiff Co., Ltd. paid the intermediate payment of KRW 376,110,000 after purchasing the real estate of this case and paying the intermediate payment of KRW 376,110,00, after obtaining permission from the Yeongdeungpo-gu Office for land use and performing construction work by bearing construction expenses from the plaintiff Co., Ltd., and subsequently paying the balance, and selling KRW 3,222 out of the above land to non-party Nos. 468,363,60, and immediately transferred the registration under the name of the above purchaser without going through the name of the plaintiff Co., Ltd... In light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to errors in the judgment of evidence judgment or the selection of evidence preparation, and the subject of the acquisition and transfer of the real estate of this case is the plaintiff Co., Ltd., and there is no violation of the principle of substantial taxation.
3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below that dismissed the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition imposing Class A wage and salary income tax and the same defense tax, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The plaintiff's appeal as to the remaining part is dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissed part are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)