Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap22877 ( August 10, 2012)

Seocho 2010west 1719 (O4, 2011)

It is illegal disposition that does not state the basis for calculation of additional tax in a tax payment notice;

Since there is no dispute between the parties that did not state the basis or type of additional tax in a tax payment notice at all, there is no reason to deem that the defect was corrected or cured, and the part of additional tax in this case should be illegal.

2012Nu28331. Revocation of revocation of revocation of a corner imposition of corporate tax

AAA, Inc.

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap22877 decided August 10, 2012

June 21, 2013

August 16, 2013

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke is revoked. The defendant's imposition of additional tax on corporate tax belonging to the plaintiff on February 9, 2009 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 70% of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 30% by the Defendant respectively.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of the corporate tax for the business year of 2004 by the defendant against the plaintiff on February 9, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

이 판결의 이유는 제1심 판결문 제15면 제4행의 "부족한 점" 다음에 "⑧ 원고의 주장과 같이 이 사건 정산합의가 민법상 화해에 해당한다고 하더라도 원고가 이 사건 정산합의를 통하여 BBB로부터 채무 일부를 탕감받았다면 이는 세법상 채무변제이익으로서 과세대상소득으로 평가할 수 있는 점，⑨ 또 BBB의 원고에 대한 대여금채권이 이 사건 정산합의 당시 이미 그 소멸시효기간이 도과되었다고 하더라도 원고가 이 사건 정산합의를 함으로써 그 시효의 이익을 포기한 것으로 볼 수 있어 채무변제대상 채권이 될 수 있는 점"을 추가하고, 원고가 당심에서 새로이 주장하는 사항에 대한 판단을 추가하는 이외에는 제l심 판결문의 기재와 같다.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

Since the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not specify the basis for calculation of additional tax in the instant disposition, the part of the instant disposition is alleged to be unlawful. As such, when imposing additional tax along with the principal tax and the additional tax by a single tax payment notice, it is necessary to separate the difference between the principal tax and the calculation basis thereof in the tax payment notice. In addition, when imposing multiple types of additional tax together, it is reasonable to ensure that the taxpayer can per se know the details of each tax disposition by distinguishing the amount of tax and the calculation basis thereof. As such, the imposition of additional tax is deemed as imposing additional tax, and it is not unlawful (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012). However, even if the matters required in the relevant tax payment notice were already stated in the tax payment notice, it is not clear that the Defendant’s determination and calculation basis of the additional tax are completely unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the disposition in this case is illegal, and the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above recognized scope, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is improper. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is partially accepted, and the part of the disposition in this case is revoked, and the plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.