Daejeon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-101446 ( November 16, 2017)

claim for re-determination shall be filed within two months from the date on which the grounds for such request are known.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance, the starting point of the period for filing a request for revision shall be deemed to be the "date on which the existence of the relevant cause is known" unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be deemed to be the "date on which the indication of whether the relevant cause constitutes the grounds for filing a request for subsequent correction is changed".

Article 45-2 of the National Tax Basic Act

2017Nu14371 Revocation of the revocation of the revocation of the global income tax rectification

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Guhap101446 Decided November 16, 2017

March 29, 2018

May 3, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's refusal to correct the global income tax of KRW 69,341,310 against the plaintiff on March 10, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following part as to Paragraph (2). Thus, the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited as they are (the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff are not significantly different from the contents asserted by the plaintiff in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court are justified even

2. The addition;

After the judgment of the court of first instance, the first instance held that the defendant's refusal of correction was unlawful inasmuch as "the plaintiff's refusal of correction was made with respect to "the illegality of the refusal of correction" in relation to "the plaintiff's refusal of correction" as stated above, although the tax payment of the above additional collection charge became final and conclusive on January 5, 2011 as income derived from bribe is not realized," the first tax disposition imposed on May 12, 2012 "the ground for the subsequent request for correction stipulated in Article 45-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes" occurred, the defendant's refusal of correction was unlawful in spite of "the grounds for the subsequent request for correction". ② The tax disposition of this case was not directly served on the plaintiff who was a prison at the time of the tax payment notice and there was no evidence that was served on the plaintiff's wife at the time of the tax payment notice, and thus, the defendant's refusal of correction was also illegal." The plaintiff's refusal of correction as to "the plaintiff's refusal of correction request of this case is legitimate (the plaintiff's refusal of correction request)."

The plaintiff's argument about illegality of the refusal of the correction of this case is not necessary to look at the plaintiff's argument in the first instance court's fifth 7th , "Therefore," in the next ...

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as it is unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.