[1] Whether a notice of change in income amount to a person to whom income belongs under the proviso to Article 192 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (negative)

[2] Whether a person to whom income accrued from the disposition of income belongs has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of a notice of change in the amount of income to the corporation (negative)

[1] The notice of change in the amount of income to the person to whom the income belongs under the proviso of Article 192 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008) is not a direct legal change in the legal status of the person to whom the income belongs, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal.

[2] The notice of change in the amount of income to a withholding agent cannot affect the rights or legal status of a source taxpayer, such as the existence or scope of a source tax liability, and therefore there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the notice of change in the amount of income to a corporation.

[1] Article 192 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008) / [2] Article 192 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2011Du14227 Decided July 24, 2014 (Gong2014Ha, 1685) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2012Du27954 Decided April 26, 2013

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu21651 decided April 17, 2013

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. The notice of change in the amount of income to a person to whom income accrued pursuant to the proviso of Article 192(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618, Feb. 22, 2008) does not directly change the legal status of the person to whom income accrues, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du14227, Jul. 24, 2014).

In addition, the notice of change in the amount of income to a withholding agent cannot affect the rights or legal status of a source taxpayer, such as the existence or scope of a source tax liability, and thus, the person to whom income accrued from the disposal of income does not have any legal interest in seeking cancellation of the notice of change in the amount of income to a corporation (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du27954, Apr. 26, 2013).

B. In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the part of the lawsuit in this case, which the defendant against the plaintiff on November 16, 2010, seeking revocation of the notice of change in the income amount for notification of the income earner and the defendant against the Bosung Trade Co., Ltd. on September 7, 2010, is unlawful. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the disposal of the notice of change in income amount or the legal interest seeking revocation of the notice of change in the income amount

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff, who owns the entire shares of a Bosung Trade Co., Ltd. owned the instant real estate, should be deemed the transfer of the instant real estate to the Nonparty, on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff, who owns the entire shares of a Bosung Trade Co., Ltd. owned the instant real estate solely based on the circumstance or evidence presented by the Defendant, constitutes the act of pretending to transfer the entire shares to the Nonparty, in order to achieve the same economic purpose, and the tax authority should respect the legal relationship chosen by the parties, barring special circumstances such as

In light of relevant provisions, legal principles, and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of substantial taxation, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of substantial taxation as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The ground of appeal that the Plaintiff constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder at the time of transferring the real estate of this case and the secondary taxpayer related to corporate tax shall not be

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)