Suwon District Court-2014-Guhap-56322 (Law No. 14, 2016)

Whether foreign tax credit corresponding to the defendant's disposal income amount is paid directly;

The evidence presented by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff paid taxes in China in addition to the amount of tax recognized by the defendant.

Article 117 of the Income Tax Act

2016Nu5519 global income and revocation of disposition

In addition, Appellant AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

June 21, 2017

July 19, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. 2. The defendant's appeal is dismissed. 3. The defendant's appeal costs are assessed against each party.

1. Purport of claim

Defendant’s global income tax for the Plaintiff on March 8, 2013, KRW 7,931,750 for the year 2007, and KRW 508 for the Plaintiff:

Type of global income tax of KRW 70,404,020, global income tax of KRW 210,620,040, and year 2010;

The imposition of global income tax of KRW 240,443,740, and KRW 61,814,140 for global income tax of year 201 shall be revoked, respectively.

on March 8, 2013, in accordance with the purport of the judgment of the court of first instance, reduce the imposition of global income tax on March 8, 2013.

The plaintiff who was defective in the decision of correction is the disposition of remaining imposition by the defendant after the reduction of the court.

The claim was reduced by seeking revocation of only the disposition of imposition on the part against the plaintiff.

(c).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as stated in the purport of the claim (the appeal shall be lodged in accordance with the reduction of the plaintiff's purport of claim

The guidance was changed as above.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the revocation shall be asserted.

each subparagraph.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to supplement or add the judgment as stated in the following paragraph (3); and (b) such part is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. Revised parts

○ 2. Deletion of the 16th knife

○ 3. Under the table, the following is added to 2. From March 8, 2016 to December 2011, the Defendant: (a) calculated income tax (70,58 bills reverting to the year 2007; (b) 151,260 bills; (c) 670,767 bills reverting to the year 2009; (d) 871,751 bills reverting to the year 2010; (b) 322,689 bills equal to the year 2011; (c) 32,687,05 bills; (d) 3.4 of global income tax reverted to the Plaintiff; and (d) 201 of global income reverted to the Plaintiff by deducting the amount of global income tax reverted to the Plaintiff from March 8, 2013; (d) 70,71,750 won belonging to the year 207, 2004, 2014 of global income reverted to the Plaintiff.

○ 4. 3 to 5.

○ 11. Removal of pages 5 to 12.

3. The supplementary and additional Plaintiff asserts as follows. In addition to the amount of tax paid to China for which the Defendant had granted a tax credit (the income tax paid to the tax office in the city of Gengsung), the Plaintiff paid the income tax on the total of 4,245,294 from 2007 to 2014. This is the amount of tax accrued from the increase income that the Plaintiff received from the said limited company while mediating transactions with the FFF investment advisory company and other companies. The Plaintiff calculated the income tax paid to the State Tax Office in China by deducting the income tax paid to the State Tax Office in the relevant year by the method of tax credit, and then calculating the Defendant’s decision (revision No. 16 evidence No. 16-1 to 5) (the amount of comprehensive income tax for the pertinent year is as listed in the following table. Ultimately, the Plaintiff paid the amount higher than the amount of tax determined in China as income tax from China.

If income tax paid to China is deducted, no income tax is to be paid further.

In light of the evidence No. 16-1 through 5, evidence No. 16-5, evidence No. 17, and evidence No. 18, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid the income tax on the total amount of No. 4,245,294 to the National Tax Office of North Gyeong-si from 2007 to 2014, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim that was reduced in this court shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Meanwhile, according to the purport of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant issued a decision of correction to reduce the imposition of global income tax as of March 8, 2013, and accordingly, the plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim. The defendant's appeal is related to a non-existent lawsuit, and thus it is unlawful as