Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-69614 ( October 24, 2016)

Since the collection disposition of this case was made after the expiration of the statute of limitations, it is unlawful.

The collection disposition of this case is unlawful since it is apparent that it was disposed of five years after the date of the initial date of the extinctive prescription; a judicial claim, response, payment, etc. does not constitute the interruption of prescription; the subject matter of lawsuit is different from that of the previous case; thus, the period of extinctive prescription cannot be extended. The plaintiff's assertion on the completion of extinctive prescription

Article 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Nu5471. Revocation of a disposition to collect tax by a corporation (original)

AAAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap69614 decided June 24, 2016

December 15, 2016

February 2, 2017

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of collecting corporate tax of KRW 000,000,000 (including additional tax) for the business year 2005 against the plaintiff on April 17, 2015 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's decision is as follows: "It is difficult to judge, and it does not go against justice and equity; it shall not be deemed that it is against justice and equity; and it shall not be permitted to make a decision; and it shall not be deemed that it does not go against justice and equity; it shall not be permitted to make a decision; and it shall not be deemed that it does not go against justice and equity; and it shall not be deemed that it does not go against the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, except for the determination of a new argument in the defendant's trial at the court of the second instance; therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. Judgment on the new argument in the defendant's trial

A. The defendant's assertion

In the case of transactions related to a foreign investment organization, the OECD report, the authoritative interpretation of tax authorities, and the taxation practice all consider that the person to whom income accrues is not an investment organization but an investor who is a member of the investment organization. The Supreme Court considers that the income related to the property belongs to the person who actually controls and manages the property in transactions related to a foreign investment organization. Accordingly, in most cases, it is difficult to determine at the time of disposition by the tax authorities, and it is difficult to determine at the time of disposition by the tax authorities, and it is final to determine that the period of extinctive prescription of the right to collect the collection of this case is to be determined in accordance with the case. Considering the fact that the judgment of the preceding lawsuit becomes final and conclusive, there are special circumstances to be deemed as September 4, 2014 in which the actual owner

B. Determination

Since the determination of a person to whom income actually accrues falls under the scope of the authority of the tax authority responsible for the imposition and collection of taxes, the tax authority should identify the person to whom income actually accrues or his/her legal form according to his/her own authority and judgment, and only take measures to collect taxes, and there are circumstances in which it is difficult to ascertain or judge the person to whom income actually accrues, the starting point of starting the statute of limitations

As seen earlier, liability to pay corporate tax withheld on the transfer income of this case shall be established on April 15, 2005 on which the transfer price of the instant shares was paid and confirmed at the same time. The extinctive prescription of such liability shall be the following day of May 10, 2005, which is the statutory due date for payment of withholding tax. As such, as alleged by the Defendant, the judgment of the previous lawsuit becomes final and conclusive, and the legal form of the actual owner of the income and his legal form becomes final and conclusive cannot be deemed as September 4, 2014. The Defendant’s assertion

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.