logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1985. 10. 22. 선고 85누117 판결
[법인세부과처분취소][공1985.12.15.(766),1566]
Main Issues

In case where a request for review was filed with other tax disposition after the lapse of 60 days from the date when the existence of tax disposition was known, whether the previous trial procedure exists or not.

Summary of Judgment

Article 66 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for the contents of the taxation disposition dissatisfied with the application as a Gap taxation disposition, and then sets forth the contents of the taxation disposition dissatisfied with the application as a Gap taxation disposition, and then files a request for examination against Eul and Byung taxation disposition, the above Eul, and Byung disposition cannot be deemed as going through the first instance trial procedure as to Byung disposition if 60 days have passed since the date of receipt of the notification of the above disposition.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 61 and 66 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Daejeon Plast Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the next full-time lawyer

Defendant-Appellee

Daejeon director of the tax office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu512 delivered on January 17, 1985

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

In its reasoning, the court below determined that the plaintiff's objection filed pursuant to the provisions of Article 66 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stated the date on which the plaintiff became aware of the disposition in the objection as of May 13, 1982, and the contents of the notified contents or disposition in total amount of 4,270,273 won from the occasional amount of value added tax in 1982 cannot be viewed as the object of corporate tax and the same defense detailed and disposition. Therefore, the plaintiff's request for review pursuant to the provisions of Article 61 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is filed for both the above value-added tax, corporate tax, and the same defense detailed and disposition, shall be filed with the intention of 60 days from the date of receiving the notice of disposition as to the above defense tax

In light of the records, we agree with the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as above, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the procedure for the pre-trial of a tax lawsuit, such as the theory of lawsuit, nor in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the procedure for the pre-trial of a tax lawsuit, and it is nothing more than a decision of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service regarding the rejection of a national tax appeal as to the request for examination, or that the plaintiff's request for examination is about the peremptory term as above, but it cannot be said that the plaintiff was made through the pre-trial procedure which is the premise of the administrative litigation of this case, on the ground that such decision was made. The plaintiff's objection is not only a disposition imposing value-added tax at the time of the original judgment but also a disposition

With respect to the second ground:

Based on the evidence in its reasoning, the court below reviewed the process that the plaintiff sold plastic products equivalent to 32,863,575 won during the period from October 20, 1980 to August 14, 1981, and recognized the fact that there was an omission in sales by omitting entry in the books, and further examined the records. There is no error of law by misunderstanding facts as to misjudgments of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and there is no merit in the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju

arrow
본문참조조문