Where the tax authority issues a copy of the capital gains tax decision to a taxpayer after voluntary payment of capital gains tax, whether such taxation exists (affirmative)

After voluntary return and payment of capital gains tax, if a copy of the decision-making resolution in which tax base and amount of tax are determined as stated in the return and the tax base and amount of tax are delivered in response to the taxpayer's request for confirmation and the contents of capital gains tax are notified, even if the above notification was made without the tax payment notice under Article 183 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994), it can be deemed that the disposition of capital gains tax was imposed under Article 128 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), and Article 183 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Article 128 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994) (see current Article 83), Article 183 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994) (see current Article 149 (1))

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu776 Decided November 10, 1987 (Gong1988, 116) Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11476 Decided June 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1819) Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9077 Decided October 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1819) Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9077 Decided October 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1819), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu19352 Decided April 11, 197 (Gong197Sang, 1493)

Plaintiff

Head of Guro Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu37317 delivered on January 15, 1997

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined on May 1994 that, in the course of exchange for the merger of land Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of original adjudication, the registration of transfer to Nonparty 1 due to the exchange of 3/15 of the co-ownership in the above land No. 1 and 2, the transfer income tax shall be calculated based on the standard market price on May 1994, and the final return on the transfer income tax shall be filed, and the amount of KRW 19,726,650 shall be paid voluntarily as transfer income tax. The defendant decided the tax base and tax amount identical to the final return on the Plaintiff on December 31, 1994, unless the defendant was notified of the tax base and tax amount determined on December 31, 1994, it cannot be deemed that there was a disposition of taxation confirming the confirmative meaning by the defendant being internal confirmed and accepted the final return on the Plaintiff's tax base, and thus, it is unlawful for the plaintiff to dismiss the lawsuit in this case.

2. However, according to the records, the Plaintiff found a public official belonging to the Defendant who did not notify the Defendant of the content of the capital gains tax decision in writing and received the confirmation therefrom, and received a copy of the capital gains tax decision (the evidence No. 2, the record No. 27). According to the copy of the decision, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff as KRW 47,170,338, the tax base for the capital gains tax belonging to the year 1993, KRW 45%, the tax rate of KRW 19,726,652, the amount of the determined tax, KRW 19,726,652, the amount of the already paid tax, KRW 19,726,650, and the amount of the deducted tax amount

If the Plaintiff voluntarily reported and paid the transfer income tax, and a copy of the decision making document stating the tax base and amount of tax were delivered in response to the Plaintiff’s request for confirmation, and the contents of the transfer income tax are notified, even if such notification was made without the tax payment notice under Article 183(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same), it can be deemed that the imposition of transfer income tax was made under Article 128 of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 183(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu19352, Apr. 11, 1997).

Although the lower court should have deliberated and determined whether the Defendant’s delivery of a copy of the above decision-making resolution to the Plaintiff is a written notification under the relevant statutes, the fact that the lower court did not reach such determination and determined that there was no written notification, which led to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the procedure for determining capital gains tax, thereby committing an unlawful act. The portion

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)