Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap59764 ( December 11, 2014)

Whether penalty tax is subject to fraudulent filing of the payment record

As long as the Act imposes the duty to submit a statement of payment, it is limited to cases where it is evident that the Enforcement Decree does not fall under the exclusion provision.

2015Nu31260 Revocation of revocation of the imposition of additional tax

AA Stock Company

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap59764 decided December 11, 2014

July 17, 2015

August 21, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The corporate tax for the business year 2010 that the defendant against the plaintiff on August 14, 2013

The imposition of penalty tax of KRW 100,000,000 and penalty tax of KRW 100,000 for the business year 201

(b) revoke the subsection (3).

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.