The plaintiff's eligibility for the action to invalidate the notice of change in income amount is a corporation.

In the notice of change in the amount of income, the original taxpayer who is not the withholding agent is not affected by the existence or scope of his tax liability due to the notice of tax payment to the withholding agent of the taxation right holder, so he may not file an appeal against the taxation right holder directly.

Article 192 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

2014Guhap4908

A lawsuit is unlawful as it is instituted by a person without standing to be a party.

Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the above merits is justified.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

May 15, 2015

June 12, 2015

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On August 9, 2013, the notice of change in the amount of income accrued in the year 2010 issued by the defendant of the Gu office against the △△△ corporation on August 9, 2013 is invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 16, 2006, the Plaintiff is a major shareholder of ○○○○○○ Ltd. ( currently changed to ○○○○○○○○○ Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○○○”).

B. On March 12, 20109, the Plaintiff transferred 41,000 shares of ○○○○○○○ Partnership (hereinafter “instant shares”) held by himself to the Nonparty Company as KRW 40,000 per share, a total of KRW 1,640,000 (= KRW 40,000 x 41,000 x 41,000) (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”).

C. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff and the non-party company constituted a specially related person under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 87(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; and (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff transferred the shares at a higher price to the non-party company, a specially related person under the instant transfer contract, the Defendant calculated the market price of the existing shares at KRW 20,196 per share based on the supplementary assessment method under Article 54 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26069, Feb. 3, 2015); (c) disposed of the Plaintiff as bonus by denying wrongful calculation of KRW 81,964,00, which is the difference between the appraised value and the transfer value of the said shares, and then disposed of as a bonus

In 2010, notice of change in income amount(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case") was made.

D. On October 2, 2013, Nonparty Company filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 2, 2013, but was dismissed on June 30, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff and Nonparty Company constitute a case where the market price is assessed objectively in the process of concluding the instant transfer contract, and thus, there is no room to apply the rejection of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The defendant's main defense

The Defendant, as the other party to the instant disposition is a non-party company, has no standing as a party to the instant disposition, and thus, deemed unlawful.

B. Determination

On the other hand, notice of change in income amount is an act of the tax authority that directly affects the tax liability of a person liable for withholding taxes, and a person liable for withholding taxes may file an administrative suit against the person liable for withholding taxes, except in a case where the person liable for withholding taxes directly imposes the original tax on him/her. Thus, the person liable for withholding taxes may not file an administrative suit against the person liable for withholding taxes on his/her own, on the ground that the tax payment notice against the person liable for withholding taxes does not affect the existence or scope of his/her own source tax liability (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2234, Sept. 9,

As seen earlier, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the non-party company. This is merely merely a establishment and determination of the obligation to pay income tax withheld from the non-party company, and it does not directly impose income tax on the non-party's bonus constructive income, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is a legal interest to seek the cancellation of the notice disposition, regardless of whether the Plaintiff, the original taxpayer, received the notice of change in income amount for the income earner