Tax liability is not extinguished due to a mistake in correction of the expiration date of the statute of limitations;

Attachment of the tax amount in arrears has the effect of suspending the extinctive prescription, and the tax liability is not extinguished due to mistake in correction of the date of expiration of the extinctive prescription under the preceding paragraph without the actual completion of the extinctive prescription.

Article 26 (Extinguishment of Liability for Tax Payment)

Article 28 (Interruption and Suspension of Prescription)

2013Gug 2789 Income Tax, etc. to confirm the invalidity of imposition

Song AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

September 13, 2013

October 4, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On March 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the taxation by the PPPP source of transfer income tax belonging to the year 2003 against the Plaintiff was null and void.

1. Basic facts

" ○ 원고는 OO시 OO구 OO동 540-11 대 1，322.4㎡ 지상 철근콘크리트 슬래브지붕 5층 건물인 CC빌딩 중 지하층 제1호 171.52㎡ ， 제2호 171.4㎡ ， 제3호 73.76㎡， 제4호 115.7㎡에 관한 각 1/2지분(이하 '이 사건 건물'이라 한다)을 1999. 6. 4. 취득하였다가 2003. 7. 8. 양도하였다.", ○ 그러나 원고는 과세당국에 양도소득세를 신고하지 아니하였고， 피고는 2004. 5. 7. 원고에 대하여 이 사건 건물의 양도에 관한 2003년 귀속 양도소득세 OOOO원을 부과하였다.

○ After that, on March 2013, the Defendant: (a) determined the payment deadline on March 31, 2013, the instant disposition that notified the Plaintiff of the tax payment on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay the said capital gains tax; (b) the sum of the KRW OO and additional and increased KRW OOO that had not been paid among the capital gains tax accrued in the year 2003.

[Based on Recognition] The respective descriptions of Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4 (which include each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Although the Plaintiff had been in arrears with the tax in 2003, the Plaintiff received a tax payment certificate from the Defendant’s public official in charge on November 19, 2009 to the effect that there was no tax in arrears with the tax in 2009 after arranging all the taxes in 2009. Nevertheless, the Defendant issued a tax payment notice to the Plaintiff for the transfer income tax for 2003 years from March 2013, and it is a disposition for the invalidation of the tax as it makes the Plaintiff to pay the tax without any basis (it does not assert that there was a defect in the initial disposition for the imposition of the transfer income tax, and because the tax obligation confirmed by the said disposition has already been extinguished, it is argued to the effect that there was a defect in the tax payment notice for the collection of the transfer income tax, and it is judged to seek the invalidity of the said disposition).

(2) Even if the transfer income tax on the transfer of the building in this case remains, and national taxes cannot be imposed five years after the date on which the relevant national tax can be assessed, and the Defendant paid the transfer income tax for the year 2003 to March 2013 after the five-year period for national tax imposition expires, and such taxation disposition is void as a matter of course.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Gap evidence 1 as to whether the plaintiff's tax liability for the transfer income tax for 2003 years expires, and the plaintiff's tax payment certificate was issued as of November 19, 2009, but it is different from the other one, and the defendant did not have any tax amount for the plaintiff as of November 19, 2009, considering the whole arguments in the items of Gap and Eul evidence 3 through 6, when the transfer income tax imposed on the plaintiff was in arrears for 2003 years, the plaintiff seized the refund claim for the defendant's life insurance company as of November 13, 2004, and the defendant did not have any tax payment notice for the above 20 years since the plaintiff did not have any tax payment notice for the plaintiff's refund claim for the EE life insurance company, and the defendant did not have any tax payment notice for the plaintiff's tax payment notice for the above 10 years period until the tax payment notice was issued as of September 18, 2006.

(2) As to whether the exclusion period has expired

As seen earlier, the date the Plaintiff transferred the instant building to the tax authority on July 8, 2003, and the statutory deadline for filing a tax return by the statutory deadline for filing the tax return, and under the relevant laws and regulations, the exclusion period for the right to impose the transfer income tax of this case is seven years, and as recognized above, the date the Defendant imposed an OOO of the transfer income tax for the transfer of the instant building on the Plaintiff on May 7, 2004, and the Defendant’s above disposition is lawful as it was made within the exclusion period, and the Defendant’s disposition is deemed lawful as it was made within the exclusion period, and it cannot be deemed that there was any defect in the tax notice issued on March 3, 2013. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion cannot be accepted on any other premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the instant disposition is deemed lawful, and the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.