Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap64629 ( November 21, 2014)

Seocho 2012west 3733 (2014.08)

Administrative fines not imposed on cash receipts shall be excluded from necessary expenses.

Those not included in necessary expenses, but excluded from total revenue are under the former Income Tax Act, and whether the imposition of fines for negligence is illegal shall be asserted in the procedure of disputing the imposition of fines for negligence.

33 [Non-Inclusion of Necessary Expenses]

2014Nu7276 global income and a lawsuit demanding revocation of such disposition

Park AA

Head of △ District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap64629 decided November 21, 2014

July 22, 2015

August 26, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part of the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 00,389,930 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the Plaintiff on April 9, 2012 exceeds KRW 00,69,624 of global income tax of KRW 00,69,930 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the year 207, exceeding KRW 00,515,936 of the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 00,726,00 for the year 208, exceeding KRW 00,901,068 of the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 00,025,232 of the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 00,573,052 for the year 200,51,971 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, (b) pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Additional determination

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant administrative fine, even in the court, cannot be included in the scope of administrative fine under Article 33 (1) 2 of the former Income Tax Act, which is imposed at a certain ratio of transaction amount, and that the instant administrative fine is not deducted or included in income as necessary expenses, and otherwise violates the substance over form principle, the principle of tax equality, the principle of double taxation prohibition, and the principle of excessive

However, the argument that the administrative fine imposed at a certain ratio of transaction amount cannot be included in the scope of administrative fine under Article 33 (1) 2 of the former Income Tax Act is nothing more than a ground beyond the interpretation of the express provision of law. In addition, it is in accordance with the provisions of the former Income Tax Act that does not include the administrative fine of this case in the necessary expenses or in the total amount of revenue. If the imposition of the administrative fine of this case is illegal or excessive, the plaintiff can only assert it in the procedure of disputing the imposition of the administrative fine of this case.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.