1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a business operator who operates a number of art institutes.

From February 28, 2018, the Defendant conducted a regular survey on the Plaintiff’s individual entrepreneur from February 28, 2018, and the first survey was conducted limited to the scope of global income tax reverted to year 2014.

On March 14, 2018, the Defendant issued a notice of extension of the scope of investigation (hereinafter “instant extension notice”) to the Plaintiff based on Article 81-9 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, stating that “The extension of the scope of investigation shall be notified in a different taxable period where a suspicion of omitting the amount of income during the period subject to investigation exists” (hereinafter “instant extension notice”).

After receiving the instant extension notice, the Plaintiff requested the taxpayer protection officer to protect the rights to the effect that the extension of the scope of the investigation is improper on March 16, 2018, but did not accept it, the Plaintiff requested the taxpayer protection officer of the National Tax Service to protect the same rights and subsequently dismissed.

In the initial investigation period (from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014), the Defendant extended the scope of the tax investigation by the period during which the exclusion period for the imposition of national taxes has not expired (from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016), and accordingly, decided and notified the Plaintiff on May 18, 2018 and June 1, 2018, total of KRW 784,147,600, including global income tax for the year 2012, as shown in the list (attached Form 1).

(hereinafter “instant disposition.” The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on August 10, 2018 at the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on April 2, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff's assertion as to the purport of the whole argument, the defendant did not specifically notify the plaintiff of the grounds for extending the scope of investigation while sending the notice of expansion of the scope of investigation, and the purport of expanding the scope of the taxable period subject to investigation, and violated Article 81-9 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.