(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.3.28.선고 2016구합900 판결

The Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on December 29, 2015 regarding the claim for the correction of corporate tax base and tax amount in 2007 and 2008 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for rectification of corporate tax for the following reasons pursuant to Article 45-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9259, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same) with the purport that “The Plaintiff’s determination of the corporate tax base and tax amount for the business year 2007 and 2008 to the Defendant is recognized as being subject to the reduction or exemption of income derived from the processing and sale of agricultural products purchased from non-members by the rules and regulations of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and the decision of the Tax Tribunal.”

B. On December 29, 2015, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that the deadline for filing a request for correction was expired (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on March 29, 2016, but was dismissed on July 14, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On March 30, 201, the Plaintiff filed a report on the revision of corporate tax for the business year 2007 and 2008 pursuant to the Defendant’s authoritative interpretation that income earned by processing and selling agricultural products purchased from non-members does not fall under the reduction and exemption. However, the income earned by processing and selling agricultural products purchased from non-members, farmers, agricultural cooperatives, etc. in the recently established rules of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and the decision of the Tax Tribunal is recognized to fall under the reduction and exemption. Thus, this constitutes an object of the subsequent request for correction stipulated in Article 45-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Since a subsequent request for correction is made on the grounds of post-declaration that had not existed at the time of the initial return or taxation, the grounds such as whether a transaction or act, which is the basis of the calculation of the tax base and the amount of tax, exists after the statutory due date of return of the relevant national tax, or the legal effect thereof vary, may be included in the subsequent reasons prescribed in Article 45-2(2)5 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2 subparag. 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010); however, the grounds why the statutory interpretation of the statutes differs from the time of the initial return or rectification are not included therein (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du28254, Nov. 27, 2014).

2) Unlike the former tax authority’s interpretation that income from processing and selling agricultural products purchased from non-members does not constitute the reduction or exemption of corporate tax, even if the former tax authority’s decision on the established rules of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance or the Tax Tribunal’s decision that the business of processing and selling agricultural products purchased from non-members constitutes the income exempt from corporate tax, such circumstance is merely a matter of issue as to whether the relevant laws and regulations were interpreted after the Plaintiff’s revised return and payment of corporate tax, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a ground for requesting a subsequent correction. There is no evidence to deem that there exists a ground for requesting a subsequent correction under each subparagraph of Article 45-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (the determination of the Tax Tribunal does not relate to the Plaintiff, and it does not constitute Article 45-2(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s request for correction constitutes an ordinary request for correction under Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. The Plaintiff’s request for correction filed on March 31, 2008 and November 30, 2015, respectively after three years have elapsed since March 31, 2008, the statutory deadline for filing corporate tax for filing corporate tax for the business year of 2007, respectively. The instant disposition that dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for correction on this ground is lawful. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the period for filing a request for correction should be calculated from the date the tax authority’s interpretation was confirmed to have been erroneous by the decision of the Tax Tribunal. However, the Plaintiff’s request for correction cannot be seen as a ground for filing a subsequent request for correction.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.