Whether the Dong tax belongs to the regular payment period system

The corporate partnership tax under Article 47 of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 332 of March 31, 54) does not belong to the so-called so-called "fixed tax payable", such as the separate tax.

Article 47 (2) of the former Local Tax Act; Article 47 (6) of the former Local Tax Act; Article 23 (1) of the former Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Nu23 Decided June 22, 1965

Daejeon District Court

Free exhibition;

Seoul High Court Decision 62Gu254 delivered on May 26, 1966

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the first ground for appeal as to the defendant's agent Jin-si's legal representative's first ground for appeal. The court below held that the court below's determination is based on Article 47 (2), Article 23 (1), Article 47 (6) of the former Local Tax Act, Article 47 (4) of the same Act, and Articles 2 and 5 of the defendant's tax ordinance (in particular, Article 5 of the above municipal ordinance emphasizes that the tax is imposed and collected at the separate tax payment period) as of January 1 and July 1 of each year on the basis of the corporate tax imposed on the corporation as of January 1 and July 1, 13/100, which shall be imposed and collected at the tax rate of 13/100 within the payment period of the separate tax. This theory is based on the premise that the separate tax payment period is the regular tax payment period. However, Article 23 (1) of the former Local Tax Act provides that the detailed tax payment period of the separate tax payment period as of January 1, 2000.

If there is no ground to regard the separate tax payment period itself as belonging to the regular tax payment period system as above, Article 5 of the Ordinance of the defendant Si, as seen above, the purport that the Dong tax is to be imposed and collected within the payment period of the separate tax, as seen above, shall be determined as the regular tax payment period like the case of the Dong tax (see Supreme Court Decision 64Nu23, Jun. 22, 1965). Thus, it is evident that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the payment period of the corporate Dong tax at this point, and accepted the plaintiff's claim under the premise of such misunderstanding. Accordingly, the appeal will be justified, and therefore, the judgment of the court below should be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the authority to transfer a red net holiday.