[1] The method to determine whether a tax authority is “a disadvantageous decision to a petitioner” under Article 79(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes where a subsequent disposition was made by the tax authority after the review by the Tax Tribunal

[2] The case holding that the above increased portion is invalid because it violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change under Article 79 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in case where the tax authority filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial against Gap who was dissatisfied with the disposition of imposition such as global income tax on the omitted amount of sales related to the place of business, and later the tax authority made a disposition to increase or correct the

[1] Article 79(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the Council of Tax Judges or the Joint Session of Tax Judges shall not make any unfavorable decision against the claimant, rather than a request for adjudgment. Meanwhile, the re-audit decision constitutes a modified decision with the intent to take part of the decision on a request for adjudgment, etc. regarding the matters pointed out in the ruling by the ruling authority, and thus, constitutes a modified decision with the intent to regard the contents of the subsequent disposition as a part of the decision on the request for adjudgment. The re-audit decision shall take effect by supplementing the contents of the subsequent disposition by the disposition of the disposition authority. As such, the decision on re-audit takes effect by supplementing the contents thereof pursuant to the subsequent disposition of the disposition by the disposition authority, and therefore, it is reasonable to determine whether the applicant is an unfavorable decision as referred to in

[2] The case holding that in case where the tax authority filed a request against Gap to the Tax Tribunal for a disposition of imposition, such as global income tax, on the amount omitted in sales related to the workplace Gap, and thereafter the tax authority made a disposition to partially increase or correct the global income tax following the review decision by the Tax Tribunal, the tax authority made a disposition to increase the amount of global income tax than the initial disposition after the review decision by the Tax Tribunal was made by the Tax Tribunal, and even if a certain amount of tax has been reduced as a whole, the global income tax should be viewed as a tax guidance for disadvantageous changes depending on a different tax unit by year, and thus, the above increased portion is invalid as it violates the principle

[1] Article 79(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [2] Article 79(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du12514 Decided June 25, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1493)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Chang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Dongjak Tax Office and one other

Seoul Police Agency Decision 2010Guhap48193 decided June 2, 2011

August 22, 2012

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders revocation below, shall be revoked.

The portion exceeding KRW 80,312,160 of the global income tax for the year 2001 imposed on the Plaintiff on November 1, 2010, which exceeds KRW 81,217,540, and exceeds KRW 150,358,450 of the global income tax for the year 2002, and the portion exceeding KRW 74,156,170 of the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2002, exceeds KRW 152,913,630, and exceeds KRW 74,338,350 of the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 203.

2. The plaintiff's appeal against the head of Dongjak Tax Office and the remaining appeal against the head of Chungcheongnam Tax Office is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Dongjak Tax Office is 95% out of the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Chungcheongnam Tax Office, and the remainder is borne by the Plaintiff, and by the Defendant Chungcheongnam Tax Office.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of January 5, 201 (which was written in the complaint on January 11, 201) imposed on the Plaintiff on January 5, 201 (the value-added tax of 17,206,000, value-added tax of 21,846,420, value-added tax for the second period of 202, value-added tax of 205,005,930, value-added tax for the second period of 2,003, value-added tax of 26,977,650, value-added tax for the second period of 2,03, value-added tax for 2,876,390, and the disposition of imposition of global income for the second period of 203, which was revoked on September 20, 201; the disposition of imposition of global income tax of 2013, 2014, 3015.

1. Acknowledgement of the first instance judgment

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion is added in the next paragraph.

○ 3 First, the term “ January 11, 2010” as “ January 5, 2010”; the term “ January 12, 2010” as “ January 7, 2010”; and the term “ September 20, 2010” as “ November 1, 2010,” which read “ January 12, 2010,” which read as “ January 5, 2010,” which read as “ January 7, 2010.”

○ From the 7th following the 3th day, the overall defense between the following 5th day is changed as follows:

(C) As to the imposition of the global income tax for the year 201 from November 1, 201, the imposition of the global income tax for the year 2003 by the head of Dongjak District Tax Office as well as the imposition of the global income tax for the year 2003, which was made on November 1, 201 by the head of Chungcheongnam District Tax Office, shall be deemed to be the “instant disposition”. The imposition of the global income tax for the year 2001 to 2003 by the head of Chungcheongnam District Tax Office as of November 1, 201, only the increased portion is referred to as “the instant increase”).

○○ 4th, the fifth below the fifth and the fourth below are 568,756,563 won “415,931,095 won”.

○ Of the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning the assertion that the actual operator is the Nonparty and its determination, and the assertion that the exclusion period of global income tax has expired, and the part concerning the determination thereof was withdrawn by this court.

2. Whether the increased portion in this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the disposition imposing global income tax for the imposition of global income tax for the year 2001 from 2001, which was imposed by the Defendant Kamban Tax Office, is more increased after the re-audit decision, and thus, it is unlawful as it violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change under Article 79(2)

B. Determination

1) Article 79(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the Council of Tax Judges or the Joint Session of Tax Judges shall not make any unfavorable decision to the claimant, rather than a request for adjudgment. Meanwhile, the re-audit decision constitutes a modified decision with the intent to take part of the decision on the request for adjudgment, etc. regarding the matters pointed out in the ruling by the ruling authority, and thus, constitutes a modified decision with the intent to regard the contents of the subsequent disposition as part of the decision on the request for adjudgment. The re-audit decision shall take effect by supplementing the contents thereof according to the subsequent disposition of the disposition by the disposition authority (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du12514, Jun. 25, 2010). As such, the re-audit decision takes effect by supplementing the contents thereof following the subsequent disposition by the disposition authority, and therefore, it is reasonable to determine whether the applicant is an unfavorable decision as referred to in Article 79(2) of the Framework

The head of the tax office of the Republic of Korea imposed global income tax on January 7, 201 to 2003 from 2001, but issued a disposition to increase the increased portion in the original disposition on November 1, 2010 after the review by the Tax Tribunal. As such, the increased portion in this case is null and void in violation of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change as stipulated under Article 79(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

2) As to this, the Defendant’s Director asserts that the assessment of global income tax does not violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration as stipulated under Article 79(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, since the value-added tax was partially revised after the re-assessment decision and the global income tax was partially adjusted, and the global income tax was partially reduced. However, the assessment of global income tax differs annually from the tax unit, and thus, it should be deemed that it is based on the guidance-based tax unit that constitutes

3. Additional determination as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. Determination on the assertion of price for factoring transaction

The Plaintiff asserts that the factoring transaction price, excluding the part recognized by the Defendant, should be excluded from the income of the instant business establishment. However, in light of the circumstances in the first instance trial, the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim was not consistent in the amount of factoring transaction price, the Nonparty is only the fact that the Nonparty registered the business with respect to the retail with the main food, health assistance, and miscellaneous items, and that there was no business registration with respect to the factoring business (Evidence No. 5-2), and the business employees also stated that there was no assertion regarding factoring in the National Tax Service’s investigation process (Evidence No. 26-1 to 9).

B. Ascertainment that there was no income and determination thereof

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's global income tax is not imposed by the defendant's Director of the Korea Tax Office, since the plaintiff suffered losses from the place of business of this case and did not obtain income, when the court conducted a survey in consideration of necessary expenses, such as new salary, business allowance, factoring sales cost, rent, etc.

However, in light of the fact that the above assertion was first asserted in the appellate court, and it is difficult to recognize the factoring transaction price claimed by the Plaintiff at the instant workplace as seen earlier, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on the sole basis of the evidence Nos. 28 through 36 (including paper numbers). The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff regarding the increase in this case shall be revoked, and the part regarding the increase in this case among the disposition imposing global income tax imposed by the head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office shall be revoked. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the head of Dongjak Tax Office and the remaining appeal against the head

Justices Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)