Seoul High Court 2015Nu38858 (Law No. 14, 2016)

(Incompetence of hearing) No penalty may be exempted in consideration of the personal and subjective circumstances of the taxpayer.

(The summary of the original trial) The expenditure without presenting the evidence shall not be deducted from the necessary expenses, and additional tax shall not be reduced or exempted, considering the personal circumstances of the taxpayer.

Article 47-2 (Additional Tax on Non-Filing)

Article 47-3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes for Underreporting

2015Nu3858 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap14542 decided December 12, 2015

on 14, 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 defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of the global income tax OO on October 8, 2012 against the plaintiff on the plaintiff on October 8, 2012.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments. Thus, this Court’s explanation is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff continued to provide various lawsuits for damages and criminal case advice for OO. Thus, the plaintiff could not report income tax on the contingent fee of the terminated arbitral award, and therefore, there is a justifiable reason to exempt the plaintiff from additional tax. However, the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff cannot be said to be a justifiable reason to exempt additional tax. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff alleged that the part of the disposition of this case, on which the defendant imposed a high-amount penalty tax on the plaintiff, is unlawful because it violates the above practice, although it is a tax practice that imposes a low-amount penalty tax on the plaintiff, the part of the non-life penalty tax on the plaintiff is illegal. However, there is no evidence to find that there exists a tax practice asserted by the plaintiff

3. Conclusion

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