It is reasonable to see that the advisory service was performed independently by utilizing professional knowledge continuously and repeatedly, and therefore constitutes business income.

Since it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff conducted advisory services independently by utilizing professional knowledge continuously and repeatedly, it constitutes business income. However, the imposition of additional tax is illegal because it does not state at all the types of tax and the basis for calculation of the amount of tax.

2012Guhap35368 global income and revocation of disposition

LAA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

January 18, 2013

February 8, 2013

1. On February 22, 2012, the Defendant’s imposition of global income tax for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff - the imposition of global income tax for the year 2006 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 19/20 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s imposition of the Plaintiff on February 22, 2012, 1, 00 won of global income tax for the year 2006 (including additional tax 000 won), global income tax for the year 2007 (00 won), global income tax for the year 2008, global income tax for the year 2008, global income tax for the year 2009, global income tax for the year 2009, global income tax for the year 2010, and global income tax for the year 2010, and the imposition of the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on January 15, 2013 (the clerical error in January 1, 2013), and the imposition of the global income tax for the year 200, global income tax for the year 2008, global income tax for the year 2009, global income tax for the year 200, global income tax for the year 2000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From 2006 to 2010, the Plaintiff received 000 won as advisory service fees from BB, etc. (=00 won in 2006 + 000 won in 2007 + 000 won in 2008 + 0000 won in 2009 + 0000 won in 2009 + 0000 won in 2010) as other income (hereinafter “the instant income”), and made a comprehensive tax return and payment.

B. On February 22, 2012, the Defendant, on the ground that “the instant income falls under the business income,” rated from other income to calculate the global income tax, and indicated in the tax notice as “Article 19(1)20 of the Income Tax Act” under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes based on the disposition, and then imposed and notified the difference of KRW 00 (including the additional tax) as global income tax as global income tax (hereinafter referred to as “the imposition disposition of the principal tax on global income tax,” and “the imposition disposition of the additional tax on global income tax for the year 2006” (hereinafter referred to as “the second disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for trial on May 15, 2012, and is currently under trial.

(Omission of Review Details)

D. On January 15, 2013, the Defendant revoked ex officio the imposition of additional tax on global income tax for the period from 2007 to 2010, and notified each of the tax payment notice to the same amount by pointing out the type of additional tax and the basis for calculation thereof (hereinafter referred to as the "third disposition of imposition of additional tax on global income tax for the year 2007, excluding 00 won from the imposition of additional tax on global income tax for the year 2007, and hereinafter referred to as the "each of the instant dispositions").

[Ground of Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 1, 6, 10, and 11 (including natural disaster) and Eul evidence 1, 2, and 7 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Article 19(1)20 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9987 of Dec. 31, 2009) which was amended and enforced on January 1, 2010, newly established Article 19(1)20 of the Income Tax Act, and thus, it cannot be viewed as business income by applying it to the taxation amount before 2010 among each of the dispositions of this case, and thus, it is unlawful.

(2) Since it is other income obtained by providing temporary advisory services without an employment relationship, each of the instant dispositions based on the premise that it is business income is unlawful.

(3) The plaintiff is a non-business operator, and the value-added tax is not imposed, and the plaintiff's income cannot be viewed as business income, and each of the dispositions of this case in the premise that the plaintiff is a business operator is illegal.

(4) Each of the instant dispositions is against authoritative interpretation of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and the National Tax Service’s established rules, and is unlawful.

(5) Measures 2 and 3 are unlawful for the following reasons:

(A) The second disposition did not notify the type of penalty tax, the basis for calculating the amount of penalty tax, etc.

(B) According to the authoritative interpretation by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and the National Tax Service, there is a justifiable reason for failing to perform the tax liability in consideration of the following: (a) the instant income falls under other income; (b) the Defendant ex officio around April 2009; (c) the Plaintiff’s rectification of global income tax for 2007 and 2008; and (d) the Plaintiff did not rectify within five years after filing the return; and (c) the Plaintiff neglected

(C) An inorganic tax is an inorganic tax imposed only on a business operator, and cannot impose an inorganic tax on the plaintiff who is a non-business operator.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff served as a state public official in the National Tax Service, planning, and finance division for about 34 years, and retired from office around April 2005.

(2) From 2006 to 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a "contract for commission of a non-permanent management adviser" with a total of 18 companies, which provides consulting services on necessary matters relating to management and tax management, and in return, receives consulting fees of KRW 000 to KRW 00 per month, and received consulting fees for each year.

(Omission of Receipt)

(3) The authoritative interpretation of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance concerning income received by the provision of advisory services and the National Tax Service established rules are as follows:

(A) Interpretation of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance (Reincome 46073-136, August 18, 200)

(Omission of Interpretation)

(B) Established Regulations by the National Tax Service (this document 46012-10560, November 17, 2001)

(Omission of Interpretation)

(4) On the other hand, while revising the Korean Standard Industrial Classification on December 2009, the Statistics Korea subdivided the ‘business service' into ‘professional, scientific and technical service' and ‘business facility management and business support service', and among them, the classification of personal service is as follows:

(A) the Korean Standard Industrial Classification before the amendment

(Contents omitted)

(B) After the amendment, the Korean Standard Industrial Classification

(Contents omitted)

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 2 through 10 (including household numbers), Eul evidence 3, 4, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to the first argument

(A) Each subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9987 of Dec. 31, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the "Income Tax Act prior to the amendment") provides that the types of business income are 16, and that "real estate business, lease business, and business services" are 19, and each subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the amended Income Tax Act provides that the types of business income are 19, while the corresponding income under Article 19(1)11 of the Income Tax Act prior to the revision is 12, "income generated from the real estate business and lease business", "income generated from the specialized science and service business" under subparagraph 14 of Article 19(1) of the Income Tax Act, "income generated from the business facility management and service business" under subparagraph 13 of Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Decree, and that the former 201 of the Income Tax Act provides that "the former 201 of the Income Tax Act provides the new 3.

(B) According to the reasons for the revision of the Act, the above type of business income is changed in order to meet the Korean standard industry classification system, and the plaintiff's career and contents of the contract, and the service provided by the plaintiff constitutes accounting and tax-related service (7412 before and after the amendment, 7120) or management consulting service (7153 after the amendment) under the Korean Standard Industrial Classification (the plaintiff also stated that the service provided by the plaintiff at the preparatory base of January 7, 2013 is provided with advice on overall management including tax), and (3) The Income Tax Act provides that the service income obtained by the plaintiff should be taxed as other income, and (2) it is reasonable to interpret the above type of business income under the premise that the income tax law is continuously and repeatedly provided with expertise, etc., and if the income of the case is continuously and repeatedly stated in the revised Act, it does not constitute a "tax payment notice" under Article 19 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act and Article 19 (1) 1 of the amended Income Tax Act.

(2) As to the second argument

(A) Article 21(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that "other income listed in each subparagraph of the same Article shall be deemed as other income only if it is income other than that listed in the main sentence of the same Article." Therefore, other income refers to "temporary and contingent income due to its nature," and even if the formal name of income conforms to that listed in each subparagraph of the same Article, if it occurs in the process of carrying out a business continuously and repeatedly for certain profit purposes, it shall be deemed business income. In addition, whether it constitutes other income, which is a business income or a lump-sum income, is not attributable to the form, name and appearance of the transaction entered into between the parties concerned, but rather, it shall be evaluated according to its substance, and it shall be determined in accordance with social norms by considering whether the activity is for profit and whether the activity is for profit and whether the activity is continuous and repeated in light of the content, period, frequency, and other factors of the taxpayer who is the party to the transaction, and the judgment shall be made in accordance with social norms, and it shall be determined by considering not only before and after the operation in question (see Supreme Court Decision 2004.

(B) The health team, ① the Plaintiff, as a party to a contract with 18 companies for five years from 2006 to 2010, provided advisory services by concluding a direct advisory service contract with 18 companies, and continuously received advisory fees each month. ② The amount of advisory fees received is large to KRW 00 won each year, and ③ The Plaintiff can be deemed to have provided advisory services as part of profit-making by utilizing specialized knowledge acquired while working at the National Tax Service, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, etc., and ④ The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have continuously and repeatedly provided advisory services with the part of continuous payment of advisory fees as a result of temporary consultation at the request of the company. However, the Plaintiff’s advice with the same method as the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have continuously and repeatedly provided with the part of continuous payment of advisory fees. However, it is reasonable to consider that continuous and repetitive consultation with the National Tax Service, etc. is reasonable to consider that it falls under the Plaintiff’s business income under Article 19(1)1 of the Income Tax Act, and that it constitutes a continuous and repetitive service business income under Article 19(1).

(3) As to the third argument

Article 1-2 (1) 5 of the Income Tax Act provides that "the resident with business income" means a resident with business income under Article 19 (1) of the Income Tax Act, and as seen above, the plaintiff is a resident with business income under Article 19 (1) of the Income Tax Act, and the plaintiff is a business operator under the Income Tax Act. The plaintiff is not a business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act. However, the Income Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act separately stipulate the definition of a business operator (Article 1-2 (1) 5 of the Income Tax Act, Article 2 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, regardless of whether the business operator is a business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act, the plaintiff's above argument is without any reason to further examine (Article 2 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "any person who supplies goods or services independently for business regardless of profit or profit."

(4) As to the fourth argument

The authoritative interpretation of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and the established rules of the National Tax Service are merely the internal administrative rules of the tax authority, and it cannot be deemed that there are legal effects binding the court or the people, and the contents of the above authoritative interpretation and established rules are identical to the classification criteria of business income and other income as above, and even based on the authoritative interpretation of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, it constitutes business income. Therefore,

(5) As to the fifth argument

(A) Defect in imposing and notifying additional tax

(1) Where both principal and additional taxes are to be imposed upon a tax payment notice, the individual tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof should be described in the tax payment notice separately, and where several kinds of additional taxes are to be imposed, the tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof should be described separately for each tax payment notice to ensure that the taxpayer can identify the details of each tax disposition in itself by classifying the amount and the basis for calculation thereof by type, even between such additional taxes, and thus, it is natural that the taxpayer can identify the details of each tax disposition in itself. As such, the imposition of additional taxes cannot be exempt (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012). However, even if there is any defect in which matters required by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are omitted in the tax payment notice, the defect of the tax payment notice can be corrected or cured if it is evident that the taxpayer has already already stated all necessary matters in the tax payment notice prior to the tax payment notice, and it does not interfere with the determination of objection against the disposition and appeal (see, e.

② In full view of the whole arguments, the tax payment notice for global income tax for 2006, along with evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 1, the total amount of the tax payment notice for global income tax for 2006, and the tax payment notice for global income tax for 2006 did not contain any basis for calculation of the above additional tax, and the amount of the additional tax calculation notice for global income tax for 2006 did not contain any details. Thus, the tax payment notice for global income tax for 2006 includes any defects such as omitting the items required by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Meanwhile, the defendant can be found to have served a tax payment notice for global income tax for 206 on the plaintiff among the lawsuit in this case. However, if the tax base of the tax payment notice for global income tax for 206, and the basis for calculation of the amount of the tax are omitted, the defendant cannot be deemed to have served a tax payment notice for global income tax for 2006, but it cannot be deemed that the other correction or correction of the defect was found to be corrected within 206.

(B) A reasonable ground

① In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed under the conditions prescribed by individual tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates all kinds of obligations, such as filing a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and such sanction cannot be imposed in cases where there are justifiable grounds for not being able to make the taxpayer justified, or where it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to expect the fulfillment of the obligation to do so, or where there are circumstances that make it unreasonable for him/her to expect that he/she would not know the obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3596, Feb. 9, 196). However, additional tax is imposed regardless of whether the taxpayer’s intention or negligence is a taxpayer, and it does not constitute justifiable grounds for not being able to cause a violation of the obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du10545, Apr. 26, 2007).

② 돌이켜 이 사건을 보건대, 원고는 ㉮ 사업소득의 유형은 소득세법에 명확히 규정 되어 있는 점，㉯ 종합소득세는 납세의무자가 스스로 과세표준과 세액을 계산하여 신 고 ・ 납부하여야 하는 신고납세 방식의 세목이고， 그 신고 ・ 납부액의 적정 여부에 대한 책임은 일차적으로 납세의무자에게 있는 점，㉰ 기획재정부 유권해석 등에 의하더라도 사업상 독립적으로 자문용역을 제공하여 받은 수입은 사업소득에 해당하므로， 세무전문가인 원고는 조금만 주의를 기울였다면 사업소득에 해당한다는 사실을 충분히 알 수 있었을 것인 점 등을 고려할 때， 원고가 주장하는 사유들만으로는 의무 위반을 탓할 수 없는 정당한 사유가 있다고 볼 수 없으므로， 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

(C) The nature of an inorganic penalty tax

(1) Article 1-2 (1) 5 of the Income Tax Act defines a business operator as a "resident having business income", and Article 81 (8) defines a "small business operator (excluding any small-scale business operator prescribed by Presidential Decree) as a "small business operator who falls under any subparagraph of Article 132 (4) of the Income Tax Act" and Article 132 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that if a business operator (excluding any small-scale business operator prescribed by Presidential Decree) fails to keep and enter books under the provisions of Articles 160 and 161 or income amount entered in books is short of the amount which should have been entered, an amount equivalent to 20/100 of the amount calculated by multiplying the calculated tax amount by the ratio of the income amount not entered in the books or the corresponding income amount short of the amount which should have been entered in the books shall be added to the calculated tax amount (hereinafter referred to as the "additional tax amount") and Article 147-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that Article 130 (1) 7) of the Income Tax Act shall be applied in the corresponding taxable period.

② The instant case is a health team, and the Plaintiff constitutes a business entity under the Income Tax Act from 2007 to 2007, and does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 132(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and there is a book keeping and book keeping and book keeping (the year 2006 falls under the business year in which a new business was commenced and thus, a life book keeping and book keeping and book keeping and book keeping are not imposed a tax. Therefore, the third disposition imposing a life book on the Plaintiff who kept and book keeping and

3. Conclusion

If so, the cancellation claim on the second disposition is reasonable, and it is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.