It shall not be deemed that the tax base or amount of tax originally reported by the Plaintiff exceeds the legitimate tax base or amount of tax to be reported under tax-related Acts.

It shall not be deemed that the tax base, amount of tax, etc. originally reported by the Plaintiff exceeds the legitimate tax base or amount of tax to be reported under the tax law, and there is no other evidence

Request for correction, etc. under Article 45-2 of the Framework Act

2018Nu2644 revocation of disposition of imposing value-added tax, etc.

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

November 9, 2018

December 14, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection of correction of value-added tax and global income tax against the plaintiff on March 31, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this case is that the court's ruling of this case is dismissed as the 6th court's ruling of this case's 's 11th court', and it is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the judgment of the parties as follows. Thus, it is also accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The parties' assertion

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 1 billion (hereinafter “AA”) to AA (hereinafter “AA”) around December 2015 constitutes a ground for filing a subsequent claim for correction under Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, even if the payment of the agreed amount does not constitute a ground for filing a subsequent claim for correction under Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the fact that the payment was calculated in excess of the agreed amount was inherent from the time of the instant service contract, which constitutes a ground for filing a general claim for correction under Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

2) The defendant's argument

The Plaintiff’s global income tax return amount pertaining to the “Korean Dangerous Goods Consulting Co., Ltd.” for the year 201 and 2012 is KRW 1,238,309,958. The amount of income claimed by the Plaintiff in the instant request for correction is KRW 1,480,684,709. In other words, the Plaintiff’s request for correction of global income tax is not a request for reduction of the tax base and tax amount originally reported, but rather a request for reduction of the tax base and tax amount corrected on December 1, 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s request for correction of global income tax, which was filed after 90 days from the date the Defendant became aware of the disposition of increase or correction, is unlawful as a general request for correction under Article

B. Determination

1) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

Even though a taxpayer who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return did not dispute within the prescribed objection period with respect to the subsequent decision or disposition made by the tax authority within the statutory due date of return, it does not affect the exercise of the claim for rectification of the initial tax base and amount of tax within the five-year period prescribed in Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du12822, Jun. 26,

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 16 through 19, the main reason why the Defendant rendered a disposition to rectify the Plaintiff’s 201 year-201 and the global income tax increase for the year 2012 is that the Plaintiff’s report was attributed to the Plaintiff’s income on December 1, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff was deemed to be a vegetable BB and joint business proprietor while the Plaintiff independently operated the Korean hazardous materials consulting.

In the claim for rectification of global income tax in this case, the Plaintiff filed a claim for rectification of the increased tax base and tax amount as well as the adjusted tax amount by the Defendant. However, the grounds for filing a claim for rectification asserted by the Plaintiff include the grounds that the tax base and tax amount of global income tax originally reported exceed the tax base and tax amount reported pursuant to the tax laws, and it is clear that the claim for rectification of global income tax in this case was filed within five years from the statutory period of filing the tax return of global income tax in this case

2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

Article 45-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "when the tax base and amount of tax recorded in the return of tax base (referring to the tax base and amount of tax after the determination or correction is made, if such determination or correction is made pursuant to the tax-related Acts) exceed those to be reported under the tax-related Acts."

As stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by this court, it cannot be deemed that the payment of the instant agreed amount was reduced or returned under the instant service agreement between the Plaintiff and the AA, and the content of the instant service agreement between the Plaintiff and the AA was determined as the price excluding all or part of the instant agreed amount from the initial date.

Although the Plaintiff did not conduct the instant service contract, the part that issued a tax invoice in excess of the actual service provided is a processing transaction, which is not subject to value-added tax, because it does not constitute a supply of goods or services subject to value-added tax. Accordingly, the Defendant excluded the aforementioned processing transaction from the tax base and tax calculation when issuing a disposition of correction as of December 1, 2014. Accordingly, the remainder of the service contract, excluding the hydro testing, was the actual supply of the service, entered into a contract by setting the service cost higher than the reasonable cost, and received the payment. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no all or part of the supply of the service subject to value-added tax or there was no income subject to income tax, in whole or in part.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the tax base, tax amount, etc. originally reported by the Plaintiff exceeds the legitimate tax base or tax amount to be reported under the tax law, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion

3. Conclusion

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