Article 12 (Taxation Jurisdiction of Corporate Tax)

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

[Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu24752, Oct. 14, 2009]

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The defendant's notification of change in income amount of KRW 6,186,187,840, which was made against the plaintiff on January 13, 2006, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the use of some of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(1) 6 pages 18 to 19 are subject to the “tax practice” to the “Jurisdiction of the tax administrative disposition.”

(2) 7th 5th 7th 5th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 5th "if it is interpreted differently, a withholding agent who intends to object to the existence of a withholding obligation and its tax amount will suffer disadvantages to judge depending on the unexpected circumstances in which the director of a tax office or the director of a regional 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 in relation to the disposition imposing corporate tax according to the inclusion in the calculation of earnings, and as such, the preceding disposition will have a double burden to object separately to the head of a tax office or the director of a regional tax

(3) 7 pages 7 marks 7 marks 7 marks 7 marks 7 marks 7 marks 2.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap1498 (24 June 2008)]

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

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties, or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings, in the descriptions of evidence No. 1 (the same as evidence No. 5-5), evidence No. 2, evidence No. 2-2, evidence No. 5-1 through No. 4, 6, and evidence No. 9:

가. 피고는 2005.5.10.부터 같은 해 6.20.까지 주식회사 ○영(이하 ○영이라 한다)에 대하여 주식변동조사를 실시한 결과, 원고가 2001.12.28. 자신이 보유하던 ○영 주식 676,160주(이하 이 사건 주식이라 한다)를 장○택, 김○규, 홍○석, 김○오, 이○동에게 1주당 5,000원 내지 5,005원으로 계산하여 합계 3,380,800,000원에 양도한 사실과 관련하여, 이 사건 주식의 취득자금 3,380,800,000원을 실제로 납부한 원고 이사장 이○근이 위 주식을 취득한 실질상 소유자이며 다만 형식상 장○택 등을 양수자로 하는 주식양도양수계약서를 작성하고 주식등 변동상황명세서에 장○택 등에게 양도한 것으로 기재한 것으로 보고, 양도대금 잔금청산일 2002.1.9. 원고가 이○근에게 이 사건 주식을 저가 양도한 것으로 판단하여 법인세법 제52조의 부당행위계산부인 규정을 적용함으로써 이 사건 주식의 정당한 가액 13,964,056,320원(상속세 및 증여세법 제63조 소정의 보충적 평가방법에 따라 산정한 1주당 시가 20,625원☓676,160주)과 실제 양도가액 3,380,800,000원의 차액 10,583,256,320원을 원고의 2001사업연도 법인세 계산시 익금에 산입하도록 광주세무서장에게 통보하는 한편, 위 10,583,256,320원을 원고 대표자 이○근에게 상여로 소득처분하고 그에 따라 2006.1.13. 원고에게 상여처분액 10,583,256,320원의 소득금액변동통지를 하였다.

B. On December 9, 2005, the director of the Gwangju District Tax Office, upon the above notification, determined and notified the Plaintiff of the above KRW 10,583,256,320 as corporate tax (from March 1, 2001 to February 28, 2002) for the business year 201 (from February 1, 2001 to February 28, 2002).

C. On March 10, 2006, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Tax Tribunal for the notification of changes in the amount of income and the revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax. On January 9, 2007, the National Tax Tribunal rejected a request for adjudication on the disposition imposing corporate tax on the National Tax Tribunal on the ground of the lapse of the period for request. On the request for adjudication on the notification of changes in amount of income, the time of the transfer of the shares in this case was determined to correct the amount of income by considering the reasonable value of the shares in this case as of December 28, 2001, which is the date of conclusion of the contract under the stock transfer contract, rather than the date of the balance settlement.

D. Accordingly, on February 7, 2007, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income by reducing the amount of bonus disposition to 6,186,187,840 won by calculating the value of the instant shares as of December 28, 2001, according to the purport of the decision of the National Tax Tribunal on December 28, 2001 (hereinafter the Defendant’s notice of the change in the amount of income as to the Plaintiff of the reduced amount)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 192(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 103(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the notice of change in the amount of income shall be made by the head of the district tax office or the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of payment of the corporate tax at the time of the disposition. In the case of corporate tax, the place of payment of corporate tax by a domestic corporation is the location of the head office or the principal office on the registry of the relevant corporation. Since the principal office on the registry of the Plaintiff is ○○○○○ 106, the principal office on the registry of the relevant corporation is '○○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○6, the Defendant

(b) Related statutes;

Article 9 (Place of Tax Payment)

Article 12 (Taxation Jurisdiction of Corporate Tax)

C. Determination

According to Articles 66(2) and 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 103(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall correct the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax on income for each business year of a domestic corporation. In this case, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company, internal reserve, etc. according to the person to whom the income belongs. According to Article 192(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office

In short, each provision of the Corporate Tax Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provide that the tax office that determines or revises the corporate income of the corporation shall be the head of the tax office or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over

On the other hand, in the case where the tax authority's disposition of income and the notice of change in the amount of income is given, it shall be deemed that the tax authority's disposition of income and the notice of change in the amount of income are a tax disposition directly affecting the tax liability of the corporation that is the withholding agent, and at the same time, the tax liability for withholding income is established by deeming that the tax office paid the relevant amount to the person to whom the income on the notice belongs on the date of receipt of the notice of change in amount of income. The tax withholding agent bears the liability to pay the withholding tax according to the contents of the disposition of income stated in the notice of change in amount of income. If the tax withholding agent fails to pay it, it shall be subject to penalty and criminal punishment. In light of the above, it shall be deemed that the notice of change in amount of income directly affects the tax liability of the corporation that is the withholding agent, and it shall be deemed that the tax disposition is a tax disposition that is the object of appeal litigation (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 20021878, Apr. 20, 2006).

Meanwhile, according to Article 9 of the Corporate Tax Act, the place of tax payment of a domestic corporation's corporate tax shall be the location of its head office or main office on the registry of the relevant corporation, and as seen earlier, the notice of change in income amount shall be the director of the tax office or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment of corporate tax on the relevant corporation. As such, the difference between the legitimate value of the shares in this case and the actual transfer value shall be the bonus to the representative Lee ○, who is the representative of the plaintiff, and thereby the authority to dispose

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of notifying the change in the amount of income of this case against the Plaintiff on the ground that it secured taxation data during the tax investigation process is unlawful as a taxation disposition by an unauthorized administrative agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da64897, Jan. 10, 2003; 98Du17968, Nov. 26, 199).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.