Where the collection disposition is made without dispute at the time of notification of change in the amount of income, the collection disposition is legitimate on the grounds that there is no reason to invalidate the notification of change in the amount.

In a case where there was no dispute at the time of notification of change in the amount of income, and only the content of notification of change in the amount of income, which is not the inherent defect of the collection disposition, the collection disposition cannot be deemed unlawful unless the notification of change in the amount of income is null and void automatically. Since there is no ground to invalidate the notification of change in the amount of income, the collection disposition

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2014Guhap54289 and revocation of disposition on earned income.

OO Development Corporation

XX Head of tax office

2015.07.09

2015.08.20

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on March 1, 2013, seeking the revocation of the part exceeding KRW 000,000, out of the imposition disposition of wage and salary income tax for the year 2008.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 of the earned income tax for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on March 1, 2013 is revoked (the Plaintiff stated in the complaint as March 5, 2013, but it appears to be a clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff borrowed total of KRW 000 on June 26, 2008, and KRW 000 on June 27, 2008 from AA technology, and transferred all of the borrowed money to B at the time of borrowing.

B. On June 30, 2008, the Defendant deemed that 000 won calculated by subtracting 000 won of long-term loans as of June 30, 2008 from the loan funds described in the above paragraph (a) was reverted to B, and disposed of as bonus to B, and issued the Plaintiff a notice of change in the amount of income (hereinafter “the notice of change in the amount of income”).

C. On March 1, 2013, when the Plaintiff did not pay the withheld labor income tax following the notice of change in the amount of income in this case, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of KRW 000 of the withheld labor income tax for the year 2008 ( KRW 000 + penalty tax of KRW 000) (hereinafter “instant collection disposition”).

D. On November 11, 2013, the Defendant revoked the principal tax ex officio among the instant collection dispositions.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s long-term loan to BB reaches KRW 000,000, which exceeds the amount recognized by the Defendant as of June 26, 2008, and all KRW 000,00, which the Plaintiff borrowed from AA technology, used to repay the loan to B. Therefore, the collection disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Whether the main tax claim is legitimate among the collection disposition of this case

As seen earlier, as long as the Defendant revoked the principal tax out of the instant collection disposition ex officio, this part of the lawsuit is seeking revocation of a disposition that has already lost its validity retroactively, and does not have any legal interest to seek revocation of a disposition that does not exist. Therefore, this part of

4. Determination on the part of the claim for revocation of penalty tax in the pertinent collection disposition

A. Legal doctrine

In cases where the tax authority’s disposition of income and notice of change in the amount of income accrued therefrom are given, the tax authority’s disposition of income and the notice of change in the amount of income are deemed to have paid the relevant amount to the person to whom the income recorded in the notice was given on the date of receipt of the notice of change in the amount of income and becomes final and conclusive at the same time, and thus, the notice of change in the amount of income is subject to appeal litigation as an act of the tax authority directly affecting the corporate tax liability (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du1878 Decided April 20, 206). Furthermore, the tax authority’s notice of change in the amount of income constitutes a disposition ordering the payment of the determined amount of income, and even if there is a defect in the notice of change in the amount of income, it shall not be succeeded as it is as it is to the subsequent disposition, unless the defect falls under a ground for invalidation. Accordingly, in cases where the tax authority’s disposition and the notice of change in the amount of income accrued therefrom, with respect to the tax liability for withholding, it shall not be contested (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du.

B. In the instant case

The Plaintiff did not dispute at the time of the notice of the change in the amount of income in this case, without any assertion as to the inherent defects of the collection disposition in this case, and only dispute the specific contents of the notice of the change in the amount of income in this case. Thus, the collection disposition in this case cannot be deemed unlawful unless the notice of the change in the amount of income in this case is null and void

Furthermore, even if the Defendant’s judgment was erroneous on how long-term loans to the Plaintiff’s LeeB were made, whether there was a ground for invalidation of the notice of change in the amount of income in this case, it is only a ground for revocation of the notice of change in the amount of income in this case, and it is difficult to view that

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit to examine further.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the instant lawsuit, the part of the main collection claim of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.