Man Doz 300

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of KRW 1,597,317,390 against the plaintiff on November 1, 2008 shall be revoked.

쇠지지鹬 쇠鹬 3000 u3000

1. Acceptance of a judgment of the court of first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion at the court below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff was amended on December 31, 2005 by the Corporate Tax Act as amended on December 31, 2005 under Article 55-2(1)3.

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the penalty tax part among the disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff was unaware of the amended statutory provisions as above (On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that the above land was not the land for non-business use, unlike the previous assertion, but the forest land under each subparagraph of Article 55-2(2) of the Corporate Tax Act became the land for non-business use in principle. As seen earlier, the above land transferred by the Plaintiff constitutes the land for non-business use as stipulated in the above provision. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected).

However, in order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed in accordance with the law in cases where a taxpayer violates the sentence and tax liability under the law without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer's intentional or negligent act is not considered as a justifiable reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7886, Jan. 10, 2003). Moreover, the Plaintiff calculated capital gains from the transfer of "non-business land" in accordance with the amended provisions as at the time when the Plaintiff reported and paid corporate tax for the business year 2007 and paid corporate tax by applying 30% of the applicable tax rate after calculating the capital gains from the transfer of "non-business land" in accordance with the above amended provisions as at the time of the Plaintiff's filing and paying corporate tax, unlike Article 55-2 (6) of the Corporate Tax Act at the time of the above filing and payment of corporate tax, it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason for the Plaintiff's assertion as above.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.