Global Income Detailed and Revocation of Disposition

The Plaintiff understood that the business account was already reported upon receipt of the above notice is nothing more than a arbitrary interpretation of the phrase without any grounds. Moreover, since the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff himself/herself, the person obligated to report the business account is also the person who is well aware of the facts as to whether each of the savings accounts of this case was reported.

The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

2018Nu65189 Detailed and revocation of global income and revocation thereof.

*

port of origin

November 15, 2018

December 1, 2018 06

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant imposed global income tax of KRW 25,567,512 on the Plaintiff on June 9, 2017, as global income tax for the year 2015.

The disposition shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' arguments and relevant statutes

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2)

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) From April 1, 201, the Plaintiff from around April 1, 201 to 100, ** In relation to this, the Plaintiff opened and reported a business account as follows.

2) The Plaintiff becomes subject to double-entry bookkeeping pursuant to Article 160(3) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 208(5)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28637, Feb. 13, 2018) from January 1, 2014 when the amount of income is at least 30 million won in 2013, and became subject to double-entry bookkeeping. Pursuant to Article 160-5 of the former Income Tax Act, the person obliged to double-entry bookkeeping shall use a business account for the settlement or settlement of the transaction amount through a financial company, etc. (Article 160-5). The person obliged to double-entry bookkeeping shall report the business account to the head of the competent tax office within six months from the commencement date

3) After opening the instant charging station on April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff opened each of the instant savings accounts (Account Number 3510-69*3-10**, Account Number 3510-69-10*, 3510-693-698-3, 3510-698-3, 3510-699*2-90*-90*, 3510-690*, 3510-6983-0532-3) with the head of the competent tax office by June 30, 2015.

4) The Plaintiff became aware of the final return on global income tax in 2014, notified by the Defendant on May 2015, 2015.

Among the additional tax items of the internal text (Evidence A5), the "establishment of an account for business" is not corresponding to that of the "establishment of an account", and the "department of bookkeeping" is described as the "person subject to double-entry bookkeeping", respectively.

5) The Plaintiff became aware of the final return on global income tax in 2015, notified by the Defendant on May 201, 201, to the first police officer.

The classification of "tax entry" of internal questions (Evidence No. 6) is written as "person subject to double-entry bookkeeping", and it is written as "Y" for "tax account failure report" among "additional tax items" at the bottom.

6) When filing a global income tax return in 2014 and 2015, the Plaintiff reported the last balance of the accounts (3510-***, 3510-*****) of each of the instant savings accounts, respectively.

Facts that there is no dispute with recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 1, the whole pleadings, and the whole pleadings

Purport

C. Determination

1) Additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed in accordance with the law in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of tax claims where a taxpayer violates a duty to report and pay taxes under the law without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intent or negligence is not considered as a justifiable reason. Moreover, even if a taxpayer has trusted a tax official’s wrong explanation and has failed to perform his/her duty to report and pay taxes, it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10350, Sept. 24, 2004). Provided, That where it is unreasonable for a taxpayer to be unaware of his/her duty, or it is deemed that the performance of his/her duty cannot be expected to have been expected to be a party even if there is a justifiable reason for not being attributable to the taxpayer’s negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10350, Feb. 10, 201).

2330 see Supreme Court Decision 2330

2) Examining the following circumstances revealed in the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s failure to file a report on each of the savings accounts in the instant case constitutes a justifiable cause for which additional tax cannot be imposed. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

A) Since the Plaintiff opened and reported a business account for about three years in operating the SK GG charging station, such as the instant charging station, for approximately three years, the Plaintiff seems to have been well aware of the method of reporting the business account.

B) Even if the “additional Tax item” of the notice for the final return of global income tax (No. 5) notified to the Plaintiff in 2014, which was written as “not applicable to the “establishment of an account for business”, it is merely the purport that the Plaintiff is not subject to additional tax due to the failure to open a business account. Therefore, it is nothing more than a arbitrary interpretation of the phrase without any grounds that the Plaintiff received the said notice to the effect that the business account was already reported. Moreover, since the person obligated to report the business account is the Plaintiff himself/herself, the person who is the most well aware of the factual basis as to whether each of the instant savings accounts was reported. Accordingly, the Plaintiff already reported each of the instant savings accounts solely on the content of the said notice.

It is not easily acceptable that the misunderstanding was made.

The Plaintiff had already reported three business accounts while operating the SK KK Hapo Pak Pak-gu, and opened the instant filling station, which is the same type of business, and therefore, it is deemed to have reported the existing business account.

I think that the obligation to report is fulfilled, and that each of the savings accounts of this case is not reported separately.

However, in light of the language and text and purport of the relevant statute, the business account is asserted.

The duty to report is clearly intended for all business accounts opened, so it is clear that the duty to report is intended for some business.

The person subject to double-entry bookkeeping shall not be obliged to make a report on account alone.

of this case without the Plaintiff’s accurate knowledge of the content of the obligation to report the business account

Even if the gold account has not been reported, it is only a mere fact that it constitutes a site or mistake in the law.

C) Furthermore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to report the business account is exempted solely on the ground that the Plaintiff entered the current status of the last balance of two accounts in each of the instant savings accounts at the time of reporting global income tax for the year 2014 and 2015 as a person subject to bona fide return.

3) Article 160-5 of the former Income Tax Act imposes on a person liable for tax payment the obligation to open, use, and report a business account on a person subject to double-entry bookkeeping for the purpose of ensuring the transparency of tax sources by inducing the person liable for tax payment to bona fide return and ensuring fair taxation (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2007Hun-Ma1191, Mar. 25, 2010). On the ground that the Plaintiff submitted the current status of the last balance of a part of the business account at the time of reporting global income tax as a person subject to bona fide return, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as identical to the instant report on each of the instant savings accounts. Furthermore, the Defendant merely submitted the current status of the last balance of the two business accounts, but did not have known or could have known that all of the instant savings accounts were opened and used as a business account. On other premise, the Plaintiff’s assertion

4) Since the instant disposition is lawful, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal shall be accepted and the plaintiff's claim shall be revoked and dismissed.