Plaintiff (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys So-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

December 15, 2004

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 583,417,700 on December 12, 2003 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff engaged in wholesale and retail business of imported livestock products with the trade name (trade name omitted) in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul (Seoul Metropolitan City). The Plaintiff purchased meat of KRW 3,913,461,495, totaling KRW 5,834,177,930 from Nice Distribution in 200, and did not receive evidentiary documents falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 160-2 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6557 of Dec. 31, 2001), and filed a final return on global income tax for 200, without omitting the above purchase.

B. Accordingly, on December 12, 2003, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the disposition of imposition of KRW 583,417,70,700 of global income tax for lack of evidence based on Article 81(8) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6557, Dec. 31, 2001; hereinafter the same) and the total amount of global income tax, additional tax on negligent sales, additional tax on negligent sales, additional tax on negligent sales, etc., as well as KRW 627,728,90 of global income tax for the year 200 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

89,165,629 additional tax amount of KRW 623,365,239,80, and the notified tax amount of KRW 627,728,90 within the payment period of KRW 627,728,90,00, which is calculated at 40.0% of the tax base of global income tax by classification included in the main sentence.

【Evidence Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1, 2, 3, 4, Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant disposition imposing an additional tax on lack of evidence is unlawful, since the additional tax on lack of evidence is imposed on the plaintiff who did not receive any documentary evidence other than the legal evidence.

(2) In a case where income tax is not returned or paid without receiving statutory evidence, the purpose of imposing additional tax due to the additional tax on negligent tax returns and the additional tax on negligent tax on negligent tax payment is achieved, imposing additional tax on additional tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax payment and the additional tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax

(3) Article 81(8) of the former Income Tax Act provides that an amount equivalent to 10/100 of the amount for which statutory documentary evidence is not received shall be imposed as an additional tax for lack of evidence, which imposes an excessive discriminatory taxation compared to other additional taxes without reasonable grounds, and is in violation of the principle of equality or the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

First, we examine the plaintiff's first argument.

(1) In general, the interpretation of the statutory provisions is able to interpret the language and text, the logical and systematic interpretation according to the legal system, the teleological interpretation according to the purpose of the law, and the historical interpretation according to the legislator’s intent. In principle, the statutory interpretation is based on the grammatic interpretation, and the interpretation by other means is in line with the nature and the grammatic interpretation, such as whether the pertinent statutory provision is in conflict with the profit-making (profit-making) and whether it is in conflict with the overall legal order.

However, in the interpretation of tax laws and regulations, it shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of the law, unless there are special circumstances, regardless of the requirements for taxation or non-taxation or the requirements for tax reduction and exemption, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6781, May 27, 2004). Furthermore, in light of the fact that tax laws and regulations do not impose taxes on taxpayers because taxable objects, such as income, consumption and expenditure, have been actually attributed to taxpayers, but they are administrative sanctions imposed on taxpayers for breach of their duty under various tax procedures in order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, and the intention or negligence of taxpayers does not be considered in imposing taxes, and it shall not be considered as justifiable grounds that cannot be caused by the violation of their duty of taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4689, Nov. 13, 2002).

(2) With respect to this case, the literal meaning of "the case where evidence other than the evidence falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 160-2 (2) has been received" refers to the case where evidence other than the legal evidence has been received, and the literal meaning of "the amount equivalent to the receipt amount" refers to the amount equivalent to the receipt amount of evidence other than the legal evidence.

The legislative intent of the above provision is to require the person who receives the tax data to receive the evidence of law in order to foster the taxation data, and it may not be the purpose of giving more disadvantages to the person who has not received the evidence of law, but rather, giving more disadvantages to the person who has not received the evidence of law in accordance with the Income Tax Act. Therefore, even if the evidence of law, such as the invoice, is not received, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the additional tax is imposed on the lack of evidence

However, the extended interpretation of Article 81 (8) of the former Income Tax Act to include “where evidence other than the evidential documents has been received” and “amount equivalent to the received amount” beyond the possible meaning of the text and language to include “where the evidential documents have not been received” and “amount not received” is contrary to the principle of interpretation of the requirements for imposition of additional tax based on the no taxation without law and thus, it is not permissible.

On the other hand, Article 76 (5) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998), which was amended and introduced on the same day as that of the former Income Tax Act, provides that "if the documents are not received, an amount equivalent to 10/100 of the unpaid amount shall be added to the amount as corporate tax" differently from Article 81 (8) of the former Income Tax Act. The legislative intent of the former Income Tax Act may be deemed to have selected a different provision from the former Corporate Tax Act in order to exclude the case where the documents are not received unlike the former Corporate Tax Act, and it may be deemed that the former Income Tax Act provides that "if documents other than the documents have been received," in the latter Income Tax Act due to mistake of the legislation, it should be interpreted disadvantageous to the public and should not be permitted under the principle of the rule of law under the former Income Tax Act. Therefore, the provisions of the former Corporate Tax Act should not be interpreted beyond the aforementioned provision.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, without examining the remainder of the plaintiff's remaining arguments, the disposition of this case imposing an additional tax on the lack of evidence under Article 81 (8) of the former Income Tax Act on the plaintiff who did not receive evidentiary documents shall be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jung-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)