Penalty received by termination of a contract shall be paid for breach of contract after cancellation of contract.

Since the contract for sale in lots was cancelled and the penalty was paid, the penalty shall not be deemed as the penalty for the cancellation of the contract for sale in lots, and it shall not be deemed as the penalty for delay in moving into the house, and the statutory interest on the original payment shall be included in the range of restitution under Article 548 of the Civil Act. Therefore, it is difficult to view it as

Seoul High Court 2017Nu4058 Disposition revoking global income tax, etc.

Note AAA, and 39

Head of Gangnam District Tax Office other than

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap73603 Decided February 10, 2017

May 29, 2018

July 17, 2018

1. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on imposition of each local income tax stated in the separate imposition details shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits corresponding thereto shall be dismissed.

2. Of the part against the Defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on imposition of global income tax on each of the details of revocation ex officio by the Defendant shall be revoked, and all of the Plaintiffs’ lawsuits

3. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

4. One-half of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

Each global income tax and local income tax indicated in the details of the attached disposition taken by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs.

The imposition of tax shall be revoked in all.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows. It is the same as the purport of the claim.

B. The Defendants

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' request corresponding to the revocation part shall be revoked.

All Gu shall be dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasoning for this part of the judgment by the court is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts written or added. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

○ The judgment of the first instance court was corrected and notified ... as shown in the attached Form 7, ...." The following was made. The global income tax for the year 2010 and the local income tax for the year 2010 was determined, corrected and notified (hereinafter referred to as "the imposition disposition of global income tax of this case," and "the imposition disposition of local income tax of this case").

○ At the bottom of the third judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added at least seven:

Around July 2018, the Defendants rendered a decision to correct the reduction of the amount of each global income tax imposed upon Defendant’s ex officio, among the parts against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance court, which was pending in the instant lawsuit.

2. Whether a request for revocation of imposition of local income tax of this case is lawful

Ex officio, we examine whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of local income tax of this case is legitimate.

According to Article 177-4(1), (2) and (5) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10416, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “former Local Tax Act”), a person liable to pay local income tax shall file a return to the head of the competent tax office at the time of filing a return of income tax, along with the local income tax, and the head of the competent tax office collects income tax by means of imposition and notice of correction, determination, etc. of income tax, the local income tax shall also be imposed and notified as income tax and the local income tax shall also be imposed and notified at the same time. In such a case, the head of the competent Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the place where the income tax is paid shall be deemed to have received a return, or notified and notified as income tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du1459, Feb. 25, 2005; 2014Du205, Dec. 29, 2016).

Therefore, among the instant lawsuits, the part seeking revocation of the imposition of local income tax of this case is unlawful as it is against a person who is not qualified as the defendant.

3. If an administrative disposition is revoked as to whether the part concerning the claim for revocation of ex officio as to the amount of tax revoked among the instant lawsuit is lawful, such disposition becomes null and void, and no lawsuit seeking revocation against non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012). Of the part against the Defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance on July 2018, the fact that the Defendants rendered a decision of revocation of ex officio revocation of each global income tax imposed on the Defendants’ respective global income tax specified in the details of revocation ex officio, among the parts against the Defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance, is as seen earlier. As such, the claim for revocation of the revoked portion among the instant lawsuit is seeking revocation of a disposition that

4. Whether the imposition disposition of global income tax of this case (the same as each of the remaining dispositions of Defendant’s ex officio revocation is the same as the global income tax of this case; hereafter referred to as “the remaining disposition” in this paragraph) is legitimate, excluding the amount of tax revoked ex officio.

The reasoning for this part of the judgment by the court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, hereinafter referred to as the "legal nature of the disposition of this case") is the same.

The judgment of the first instance court is 3rd 7th 'Seoul District Court' to 'Seoul Central District Court'.

○ The 5th written judgment of the first instance court is the 5th 'Plaintiff' as the 'Plaintiff'.

○ 5th written judgment of the first instance court, the 5th 5th 'scheduled date of occupancy' is higher than the scheduled date of occupancy.

The following contents are added from 5 pages of the judgment of the first instance court. In other words, even if the plaintiffs cannot be seen as the "compensation for delay in moving into a house" in the penalty of this case received by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs asserts that the amount equivalent to the compensation for delay, which has already been incurred at the time of cancellation of the sale contract of this case, shall be deemed as the "compensation for delay in moving into a house" and the necessary expenses of 80% shall be deducted with respect to the portion having the characteristics of the compensation for delay and penalty, and the delay damages thereof, as the "compensation for delay in moving into a house". However, as seen earlier, the plaintiffs merely cancelled the sale contract and received the penalty of this case, as alleged by the plaintiffs, and it is difficult to view that there are parts having the characteristics of liquidated damages

The judgment of the first instance court 7 to 9-10 pages are as follows. The amount of legitimate tax calculated by excluding the statutory interest, etc. in this case from the tax base is equal to each global income tax amount among the remaining dispositions entered in the details of revocation ex officio by the Defendant. Therefore, the remaining disposition in this case is lawful, and the Plaintiffs’ assertion seeking revocation thereof is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part concerning the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing local income tax of this case among the lawsuit of this case and the part concerning the claim for revocation of the ex officio revocation among the disposition imposing global income tax of this case is unlawful, and thus, the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax of this case, other than the ex officio revocation, shall be dismissed. Since the part concerning the disposition imposing local income tax of this case and the amount of tax revoked ex officio among the disposition imposing global income tax of this case among the judgment of the court of first instance is unreasonable, the part concerning the disposition imposing global income tax of this case is revoked and all of the plaintiffs corresponding thereto are dismissed. Since the part concerning the global income tax of this case except the amount of tax revoked ex officio among the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, the appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. As to the bearing of litigation costs, Articles 8(2) and 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles