Suwon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-2186 (Law No. 12, 2017)

The evasion of income tax by using a borrowed account constitutes the scope of application of unfair non-reported penalty tax.

The exclusion period of imposition for the plaintiff's evasion of income tax by using the borrowed name account includes fraudulent or other unlawful acts, and the exclusion period of imposition is 10 years, not the general exclusion period of imposition.

Article 26-2 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2017Nu76069

If so, this part of the lawsuit is a necessary transfer principle.

As it is against the law, it shall be deemed unlawful (as stated in the evidence No. 2 of the A, the plaintiff shall not be deemed to be the plaintiff.

On April 1, 2015, each disposition shall be filed with the director of a regional tax office on April 1, 2015.

It is recognized that the objection was dismissed, but the objection is a necessary pre-trial procedure.

The Framework Act on National Taxes is only a procedure that can be voluntarily filed prior to a request for examination or adjudgment (basic law).

Article 55(3))

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of each disposition of this case is without merit.

of this case. The preliminary claim seeking the revocation of each disposition of this case is dismissed.

The judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the primary claim, shall be in accordance with this conclusion.

Since the plaintiff's appeal is justified, it is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is added by this court.

The preliminary claim shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

NewA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap2186 Decided September 12, 2017

July 4, 2018

August 22, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. We dismiss the conjunctive claim part added by this Court. 3. Costs of lawsuit after the appeal are brought shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

A. Mainly, the Defendant’s global income tax on January 2, 2015 for the Plaintiff on January 2, 2006

00,000,000 global income tax for the year 2007,00,000 global income tax for the year 2007, and global income tax for the year 2008

The imposition of KRW 0,00,00 (including each additional tax) shall be confirmed to be null and void in all.

B. Preliminary, the Defendant’s global income tax on January 2, 2015 for the Plaintiff on January 2, 2006

00,000,000 global income tax for the year 2007,00,000 global income tax for the year 2007, and global income tax for the year 2008

The imposition of KRW 0,000,000 (including each additional tax) shall be revoked in all (the plaintiff shall be entitled to the preliminary tax in this Court).

The claim was added.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The Defendant’s global income for the Plaintiff on January 2, 2015 shall accrue to the Plaintiff in the year 2006.

Class 00,000,000, global income tax for the year 2007, global income tax for the year 2000,000, global income tax for the year 2008

The imposition of KRW 0,00,000 (including each additional tax) shall be confirmed to be null and void in all (the purport of the appeal by the plaintiff).

The statement that seeks the cancellation of each of the above dispositions seems to be a clerical error.

1. Details of the disposition;

This Court's reasoning is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2 to No. 31). Thus, this Court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

The reasons for this part are as follows, in addition to amending part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 3 to No. 68) is the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

(1)No 3rd 10th 10th 10 shares "each Disposition," with "5th 12th 13th 7 years" as "five or seven years," respectively; (2) the fourth 4th 5th 5th 1st 5th 1st 1st 2000 "court costs" with "9th 9th ; (3) the 5th 5th 5th 5th 12th 5th 5th 20th 5th 5th 20th 5th 5th 5th 20th 5th 5th 20th 5th 5th 20th 5th 5th 20th 5th 5th 5th 5th 2002nd 5th 1st 5th 5th 5th 2010th 5th 2nd 5th 5th 2010th 5th 2nd 5th 5th 201st 2th 5th 201st 2nd 2nd 2nd 201st 201st .

[See, etc.]

(v)"In the first place "in the dispute account" in paragraph 6, the second place "in the second place" and "in the second place" followed:

“((The global income tax is the assessment method for which the determination method of the global income tax is the assessment method)”, and “other than” in the 6th sentence.

Then, “(the first Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff asserts, has used the key account in the name of the largest BB.”

"It is difficult to see otherwise even if the Plaintiff’s account was seized due to the attachment of the Plaintiff’s account."

each addition.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

The disposition of this case was imposed on the part other than the plaintiff's income amount.

The defendant asserts that it should be revoked by law, and against this, the plaintiff's lawful procedure of pre-trial trial.

Since this part of the lawsuit did not go through, it is unlawful to the effect that it is unlawful.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is required to file a revocation suit against the disposition of national tax imposition.

Request for examination or adjudgment from the Director of the Tax Tribunal on the next Commissioner of the National Tax Service (Administrative Litigation Act No. 18)

Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes immediately without following the proviso to paragraph (1) of the same Article and Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.