Cho-2016-China-2053 ( June 30, 2016)

Notice of rejection of a request for correction filed after the lapse of 90 days from the deadline for filing the request shall have the nature of simple civil petition correspondence, and it shall not be deemed a disposition.

The rejection notice of a request for correction filed after the lapse of 90 days from the deadline for filing the request shall have the nature of simple civil petition correspondence, and shall not be deemed a rejection disposition subject to appeal.

Article 45(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Guhap53498 Revocation of Disposition of Refusal to Demand Correction

000 Construction Co., Ltd.

O Head of tax office

June 15, 2017

August 17, 2017

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on April 19, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that was established on February 7, 2003 and operated a reinforced concrete construction business as its main business.

On June 1, 2014, the head of the tax office confirmed the fact that the amount omitted in sales from 2009 to 2012 as a result of the integrated investigation conducted by the Plaintiff was 1,636,476,000 won. At the same time, the head of the tax office corrected and notified the value-added tax and corporate tax thereon, and at the same time notified the 00 representative director who is the actual representative director of the Plaintiff, of the change in the amount of income (hereinafter referred to as "the notice of the change in the amount of income of this case").

B. On July 10, 2014, according to the notice of change in the amount of income in this case, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking cancellation of the notice of change in the amount of income in this case with the Tax Tribunal on the grounds that the actual reversion of income is different. However, the said claim was dismissed on February 26, 2015, and the Plaintiff did not institute an administrative litigation.

(C) After that, on January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction (hereinafter “instant request for correction”) with the Defendant for the correction of the instant revised return, asserting that the method of estimated correction based on the notice of change in the amount of income was unreasonable and unreasonable and that the amount of income cannot be recognized. Accordingly, on May 11, 2016, the Defendant had already passed 90 days of the period for filing a request for correction pursuant to the proviso to Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and on the ground that “the period for filing a request for correction pursuant to the proviso to Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is not an object of the request for correction, and thus is not an object of the request for correction” (hereinafter “instant notification”). The Plaintiff appealed against this request and filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on May 17, 2016, but the Tax Tribunal rejected the said request for correction after the lapse of the period for filing a request for correction.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the provisional number, if any), the significant facts in this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff merely filed a revised return of the instant income amount pursuant to the notice of the change in the amount of the instant income, and thus, filed a request for correction as to the notice of the change in the amount of the instant income within 90 days. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not have a duty to rectify the amount of the instant request for correction or make a rejection disposition, etc. Accordingly, the instant notice cannot be deemed a rejection disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The period for filing the instant claim for correction

Article 45-2 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall apply mutatis mutandis to the right of a withholding agent to request correction under Article 45-2 (4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. If a withholding agent pays income tax through year-end tax settlement before amendment by Act No. 8830 of December 31, 2007 and submits a payment record within the payment period, he/she may request correction within three years from the date following the additional payment of income tax in accordance with the notice of change in income (the 10th day of the month following the month in which the notice of change in income is received) (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du23587, Nov. 24, 201). However, if a tax office receives a request for correction within 20 days from the date of application for correction or within the period of 20 days from the date of application for correction, which is revised by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007 (see Supreme Court Decision 20120 days from the date of application for correction).

In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s claim for correction of wage and salary income tax accrued from 2009 to 2012 pursuant to Article 45-2(4) and the proviso to Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be filed within 90 days from the date the Plaintiff becomes aware of the notice of change in the amount of income or the date the notice of change in the amount of income was received.

㈎ 과세관청의 소득처분과 그에 따른 소득금액변동통지가 있는 경우 원천징수의무자인 법인은 소득금액변동통지서를 받은 날에 그 통지서에 기재된 소득의 귀속자에게 당해 소득금액을 지급한 것으로 의제되어 그 때 원천징수하는 소득세의 납세의무가 성립함과 동시에 확정된다(대법원 2006. 4. 20. 선고 2002두1878 판결 참조). 이처럼 소득금액변동통지를 받음과 동시에 세액이 자동으로 결정되는 이상 소득금액변동통지는 국세기본법 제45조의2 제1항 단서에서 규정하는 '과세표준 및 세액을 증가시키는 결정' 등에 해당한다고 볼 수 있고, 그렇게 보는 이상 경정청구의 기산점은 소득금액변동통지처분이 있음을 안 날 또는 소득금액변동통지처분의 통지서를 받은 날로 보는 것이 법 문언에 부합한다고 할 수 있다.

㈏ 한편, 소득금액변동통지를 받은 법인이 국세기본법 제45조의2 제4항에 따른 경정청구의 기산일을 소득금액변동통지에 따른 소득세 납부기한 다음 날이 된다고 보는 견해가 있을 수 있다(대법원 2011. 11. 24. 선고 2009두23587 판결 참조). 그러나 위 판례는 2003 사업연도에 유출된 소득에 대한 소득금액변동통지가 문제된 경우로서 국세기본법 제45조의2 제1항 단서 등이 신설되기 전의 사안으로 이 사건에 그대로 적용될 수 없는 점, 소득금액변동통지는 그 소득세 지급시기를 의제하여 그때 납세의무가 성립・확정되도록 하고, 그에 따라 원천징수의무자는 납세의무를 이행하여야 하는 점에서 과세관청의 부과처분(증액경정처분)과 사실상 유사하다고 볼 수 있는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 소득금액변동통지는 납세의무자인 원고의 구체적인 권리・의무에 직접적인 변동을 초래하는 처분으로서 국세기본법 제45조의2 제1항 단서에서의 '과세표준 및 세액을 증가시키는 결정' 내지는 2007. 12. 31. 개정된 구 국세기본법 제45조의2 제1항의 경정청구기간이 90일 이내로 제한되는 '세법에 따른 결정'에 해당하므로, 소득금액변동 통지서를 받은 날부터 90일 이내에 경정을 청구할 수 있다고 보아야 한다.

㈐ 2003. 12. 30. 법률 제7008호로 국세기본법 제45조의2 제4항이 신설되면서 원천징수의무자의 경정청구권이 보장되었고, 현재 소득금액변동통지의 처분성도 인정되고 있으므로(대법원 2006. 4. 20. 선고 2002두1878 판결 참조), 원천징수의무자는 위법한 소득금액변동통지 자체에 대하여 곧바로 취소소송을 제기하거나 소득금액변동통지에 따라 원천징수세액을 징수・납부한 후 경정청구를 하여 구제받을 수 있다(앞서 본 바와 같이 원고는 이 사건 경정청구 이전에 이미 이 사건 소득금액변동통지에 대하여 구제절차를 거친 바 있다). 한편, 이와 같이 보게 되면, 소득처분과 소득금액변동통지를 받은 원천징수의무자에게 따로 경정청구권을 인정한 실익이 없을 수 있다. 그러나 증액경정처분의 경우에도 항고소송과 경정청구권을 모두 인정하지만 증액된 부분에 대해서는 제소기간과 경정청구기간을 일치시켜 법률관계의 조속한 안정을 취하도록 하고 있는바, 그와 같은 사정이 법인에 대한 법인용 소득금액변동통지의 법적 성격과 위 문언에 부합하는 해석을 배척할 만한 합리적인 근거가 되지 못한다.

(ii) the existence of eligible eligibility

Since a request for correction filed after the lapse of the period for filing a request for correction does not have a duty to either determine or rectify the tax base and the amount of tax or to take a disposition of refusal, it shall not be deemed a disposition of refusal that is subject to appeal, even if the tax authority refuses correction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Du44830, Mar. 12, 2015; 2012Du27183, Dec. 11, 2014).

As seen earlier, on June 1, 2014, the head of the tax office notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income of this case, and the Plaintiff received a notice of change in the amount of income of this case 4) on July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a withholding performance report and paid KRW 512,926,609 as earned income tax withheld at least 00. According to the above facts found, the Plaintiff was aware of the change in the amount of income at least on July 10, 2014. Accordingly, even if the instant request for correction was filed on January 12, 2016 and the period for request was already passed, it cannot be deemed a rejection disposition that the Defendant rejected the instant request for correction. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful due to the lack of qualifications, and the Defendant’s objection on the merits that points out this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.