Seoul High Court-2016-Nu-78969 ( October 14, 2017)

Seocho 2015west 5539 ( March 24, 2016)

The key amount of this case is the Plaintiff’s fee omitted in sales, and it is reasonable to deem the tax investigation of this case as a tax investigation permitted to conduct a reinvestigation.

The court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the evidence, burden of proof, etc. in determining the plaintiff's fee omitted in sales, and the tax investigation of this case seems to have been conducted on the basis of data supporting objectivity and rationality to a considerable extent that can verify the possibility of tax evasion. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that re-investigation is allowed.

Article 81-4 (Prohibition of Abuse of Right of Tax Investigation)

2017Du5237 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax

door-○

○ Head of tax office

February 28, 2018

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's legal representative omitted sales of x members of xx on July 29, 2009 in relation to 2009 of the Value-Added Tax Act by making a statement to the fact that the plaintiff's legal representative did not dispute on July 29, 2009 at the second date of pleading in the court of first instance, and it is difficult to recognize that the confession was contrary to the truth and was made by mistake. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above money constitutes omission of sales as the plaintiff's fees even if it cannot be viewed as

In light of the record, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the mistake, confession and revocation of a trial beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, and the burden of proof of taxation requirements.

2. As to grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

Article 81-4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "tax officials shall conduct a tax investigation to the minimum extent necessary to realize proper and fair taxation, and shall not abuse their authority of investigation for any other purpose, etc." and Paragraph 2 of Article 81 provides that "no re-investigation shall be conducted for the same tax item and the same taxable period unless it falls under any of the following subparagraphs to which re-investigation is permitted" and Paragraph 1 of Article 81 provides that "one of the cases where re-investigation is exceptionally permitted has evident evidence to acknowledge suspicion of tax evasion".

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the instant tax investigation constituted a reinvestigation under Article 81-4(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, on the grounds that the previous investigation of this case and its taxable items and taxable periods overlap, but the tax evasion report, which was an opportunity for the instant tax investigation, was submitted along with relevant materials, such as content certification, deposit certificate, receipt, acceptance details of the instant case, and deposit details of the borrowed account, as well as the details of the instant tax investigation, and such relevant materials cannot be deemed as having been already submitted and investigated in the instant prior investigation, the Defendant may be deemed to have conducted the instant tax investigation on the basis of the materials supporting objectivity and rationality to the extent that it can confirm the possibility of tax evasion by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the instant tax investigation constitutes an exceptionally permissible reinvestigation under Article 81-4(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus did not violate the principle of prohibition of duplicate tax investigation

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on double tax investigations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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