[1] The nature of the under-reported and under-paid additional taxes under the Corporate Tax Act, and whether the additional taxes may be imposed even in a case where there is a justifiable reason for not being able to cause any negligence on the taxpayer’s duty (negative)

[2] The case holding that an additional tax may not be imposed on a taxpayer on a justifiable ground that it is not attributable to a taxpayer's negligence due to an interpretation of the tax-related provisions

[1] Under the Corporate Tax Act, the additional tax for underreporting and the additional tax for non-payment are a kind of administrative sanctions imposed when a taxpayer corporation is liable to return a tax base and pay the tax amount in good faith in order to ensure the propriety of taxation, and is negligent in fulfilling its obligations in order to secure it. Such sanctions cannot be imposed if there is a justifiable reason to believe that it is not unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of his/her obligations due to a conflict of opinion due to a deceitful interpretation of the tax law beyond the simple scope of the land or the scope of the misunderstanding of the law.

[2] The case holding that in full view of various circumstances, in relation to the interpretation of the transitional provisions of the supplementary provisions, additional tax may not be imposed on justifiable grounds that are not attributable to the taxpayer due to the intention of interpretation of the provisions of the related tax law, in full view of the following: (a) there was considerable room for understanding that the gains on transfer of land were non-taxable income as well as the previous provisions; (b) there was advice and tax adjustment from experts in the interpretation thereof; and (c) the tax authorities did not have a clear view in the interpretation of the relevant provisions; and (d) it is deemed that imposing additional tax

[1] Article 2 subparag. 4 and Article 47(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 41 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998), Article 41 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998) / [2] Article 2 subparag. 4 and Article 47(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 59-3(1)14 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 16 of the Addenda of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 41 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 198), Article 36 of the former Industrial Base Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 15094, Mar. 16, 198, 1996, 1990)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Nu229 delivered on February 24, 1987 (Gong1987, 148), Supreme Court Decision 88Nu4218 delivered on April 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 831), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu660 Delivered on June 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 2060), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2936, 2943 delivered on October 23, 1992 (Gong192, 3321), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3582 delivered on April 28, 195 (Gong195, 199) (Gong195, 199), Supreme Court Decision 195Nu173545 delivered on October 15, 196 (Gong195, 195).

Korea Water Resources Corporation (Attorneys O Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 201Na11466 delivered on August 2, 20

Supreme Court Decision 98Du13713 delivered on May 29, 2001

Daejeon High Court Decision 2001Nu1145 delivered on November 30, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Under the Corporate Tax Act, the additional tax for underreporting and the additional tax for non-payment are a kind of administrative sanction imposed when a taxpayer corporation is liable to return a tax base in good faith and to pay the tax amount in order to secure the propriety of taxation, and is negligent in fulfilling its obligations. Such a sanction is a kind of administrative sanction imposed on the taxpayer when it is not unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of his obligations due to a conflict of opinion due to a significance under the interpretation of the tax law beyond a simple scope of land or misunderstanding under the law, and it is not unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of his obligations due to a conflict of opinion due to the interpretation of the tax law beyond the scope of the law, or when there is a circumstance that it is unreasonable for the person concerned to expect the fulfillment of his obligations, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu2936, Oct. 23, 1992; 294Nu3582, Apr. 28, 1995, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts as follows. The plaintiff was a corporation established under the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, which had been amended by Act No. 4020, Dec. 26, 1988; hereinafter referred to as the "former Corporate Tax Act"). The plaintiff's proposal and position that changed the non-taxation benefits of special surtax like other public corporations established under the former Corporate Tax Act were accepted, and the former Industrial Base Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4216, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter referred to as the "Industrial Sites and Development Act") did not impose special surtax on the land within the district designated under the former Act No. 9 of the Act on the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption (amended by Act No. 4165, Dec. 30, 1989; hereinafter referred to as the "former Corporate Tax Act"), and determined that the provisions of the former Act on the reduction and exemption of special surtax were not imposed for more than 90,000,000 won.

According to the above legal principles and records, the above recognition and decision of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to legitimate grounds for imposition of penalty tax under the Corporate Tax Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)