Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap5967

early 2014west 2326

The starting point of the exclusion period prescribed by the special provisions of this case shall be the date of adjudication, not the final date of adjudication.

It is reasonable to regard the starting point of the exclusion period stipulated by the special provisions of this case as the adjudication date rather than the final date of the judgment, and it is natural to interpret the main text of the special provisions of this case as setting the closing period only.

Articles 21 and 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015Nu55907 Gross income and revocation of disposition

LAA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap5967 decided August 19, 2015

December 23, 2015

January 20, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of global income tax of KRW 12,754,910 against the Plaintiff on February 6, 2014 rendered by the Defendant on February 6, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as stipulated in paragraph (2) below; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff as stated in paragraph (3) below; and (c) thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2

2. Parts in height:

○ 3rd and 12th and 3th and 12th are the courts to be the Seoul Administrative Court.

On February 12, 2014, ○○ 4, the second sentence was imposed, and it was determined and notified 'the Plaintiff reached February 12, 2014.'

Article 12-3(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25201, Feb. 21, 2014) provides that the date on which a national tax may be imposed shall be the day following the due date of the filing deadline or the due date of the return of the tax base and tax amount of the national tax, and Article 79(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that a resident having global income in the relevant taxable period shall report the tax base of global income to the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment from May 1 to May 31 of the year following the relevant taxable period under the conditions as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

○ From January 1, 2007 to June 1, 2007, the following day after the due date for filing a return is called from the 5-6-6-year taxable period.

○, on February 12, 2014, the 6th and 10th of the 5th of the 6th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 2014.

In the 00th 6th 8th , the "taxable period" is regarded as the "reporting period".

3. Additional determination

The Plaintiff asserts that the “determination of a judgment” under the Special Provision refers to the “adjudication,” and thus, the instant disposition that was rendered after the lapse of one year, counting from March 8, 2013, which was the date of the judgment of the first instance court, is unlawful on the ground that the exclusion period is excessive.

However, barring any special circumstance, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations requires more strict interpretation. Among them, it is apparent in the text of the Act that the Special Provision provides that "a final and conclusive judgment which is not a "adjudication" but a "judgment" is not a "judgment" and the final and conclusive judgment is clearly distinguishable from the pronouncement. According to the above facts, on February 8, 2013, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment accepting the relevant case on the ground that the additional tax for the year 2006, among the Plaintiff's claims, was not classified by type, and the basis for calculation of additional tax is not specified, and the additional tax is only included in the sum of additional tax. The Defendant supplemented the defect in accordance with the purport of the above judgment and issued the instant disposition on February 6, 2014, and the point at which the said judgment became final and conclusive is valid before one year has elapsed since the judgment, which is the exclusion period prescribed by the Special Provision.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.