Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap27527 (02.01)

Additional tax is an administrative sanction to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, and the taxpayer's intention or negligence is not considered.

In order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of tax claims under the tax law, the taxpayer's intention and negligence is not considered as administrative sanctions imposed as prescribed by the Act if the taxpayer violates various obligations, such as reporting and paying taxes, without justifiable grounds, and the mistake in the site of the statutes does not constitute justifiable grounds that may cause the breach of the duty.

Article 17 of the Income Tax Act

2013Nu7607 Disposition of revocation of imposition of income tax, etc.

1.A 2.GaB

The director of the tax office.

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap27527 decided February 1, 2013

October 2, 2013

October 30, 2013

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' claims that have been changed in exchange in the trial are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's imposition of the income tax on July 1, 201 and the income tax on the plaintiff ParkB made to the plaintiff ParkbB and the additional tax on September 9, 2013 and the imposition of the additional tax on the plaintiff ParkbB on September 9, 2013 are revoked (the plaintiff was changed to seek revocation of the disposition of the defendant on September 9, 2013 as to the additional tax amount at the first instance trial, and the claim was changed to exchangely to seek revocation of the disposition of the tax on September 9, 2013).

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the deletion or addition as follows, and the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff to the subsequent argument that the plaintiff raised again in the trial is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

○ Part 2, No. 17 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") shall be deleted.

○ The following shall be added to Chapter 2, Chapter 17:

E. After that, the Defendant revoked ex officio the imposition of each of the instant dispositions on September 1, 2013, and on September 9, 2013, by stating the type, tax base, calculation basis, etc. of each of the instant dispositions in the notice of tax payment, etc., the Defendant again imposed an OOO of the penalty tax on the Plaintiff ParkbB and the Plaintiff ParkB on the following (hereinafter the Defendant’s imposition of each of the income tax on July 1, 201 and the imposition of each of the penalty taxes on September 3, 2013, hereinafter “instant disposition”).

on the 20th page 20 [based grounds for recognition] add 9, 9, 10, 11 of Category A (including additional numbers) to the 20th page.

2. Additional determination

The plaintiffs, even if the income from the transfer of the shares of this case is not capital gains but deemed as income, the plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of imposition of additional tax among the disposition of this case is unlawful on the ground that there are justifiable grounds for not being able to mislead the plaintiffs about the failure to report and pay the income as deemed income at the time of transferring the shares of this case.

Therefore, in light of the circumstances cited in the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by this court as the reasons for the judgment, it is difficult to recognize the above facts of the plaintiffs' assertion even when considering the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, and there is no other evidence to support it. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are all dismissed due to the lack of grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and therefore, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed, and the changed plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in exchange in the court of first instance. It is so decided as per Disposition.