District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-10263 (20 June 20, 2017)

In the case of fraud or other unlawful act, the exclusion period of 10 years is applied.

Since it is recognized that the active concealment of the intention to evade tax was objectively revealed, the exclusion period for imposition of ten years is applied.

Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Period for Excluding Assessment of National Taxes)

2017Nu61791 Invalidity of the imposition of global income tax

OO

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap10263 Decided June 20, 2017

October 27, 2017

November 24, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant confirms that the disposition of imposition of global income tax on the plaintiff of 20O.O.O.O. is invalid.

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

This decision is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following judgments as to the matters alleged by the plaintiff in the trial. Thus, this decision is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. In the trial, the Plaintiff asserts that the disposition in this case is unlawful, and its defect is so serious and clear that it is invalid, since it became final and conclusive that the possibility of loss of economic benefits inherent in the above income is realized and that it is not realized.

B. In the crimes, such as bribe, acceptance of good offices, and breach of trust, under the Criminal Act, the purpose of confiscation or collection is to deprive a taxpayer of benefits arising from the crime and prevent such unlawful gain from being held. Therefore, if confiscation or collection has been made with respect to such unlawful income, it constitutes realizing the possibility of loss of economic benefits inherent in the illegal income. Therefore, in such a case, since income has not been ultimately realized, it is reasonable to allow a taxpayer to file a claim for reduction by proving that there has occurred a change in the basis for calculating the tax base and tax amount due to the occurrence of a subsequent event after the establishment of the tax liability. In other words, even if a tax liability was established upon fulfilling the taxation requirement of illegal income control and management, even if the possibility of loss of economic benefits inherent in the illegal income such as confiscation or collection is realized after the occurrence of a subsequent trigger cause, and thus becomes final and conclusive as not realizing income, barring any special circumstance, a taxpayer can seek for revocation of the tax liability based on the initial provision of Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, etc.

C. In light of the above legal principles, the facts and the above acknowledged in the background of the above disposition

In full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to deem that the possibility of loss of economic benefits inherent in the above income is realized and that income is not realized, as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the surcharge, even though the pertinent criminal judgment was sentenced to additional collection on the above OO won. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.