logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.12.10 2019구합7809
종합소득세부과처분 무효확인등
Text

All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff served as the representative director of a stock company B (hereinafter “instant company”) in the year to which 2012 was reverted and the year to which 2013 was reverted.

B. The instant company did not report the tax base of the corporate tax for the year 2012 and 2013, and thus, the director of the Ulsan Tax Office decided corporate tax. Accordingly, the instant company did not report the global income tax.

C. On January 6, 2016, the head of Ulsan District Tax Office imposed global income tax of KRW 12,026,930, and global income tax of KRW 51,611,040 for the year 2013 on the Plaintiff. Pursuant to Articles 89(1) and 93(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same), the head of Ulsan District Tax Office imposed local income tax of KRW 1,202,693, and local income tax of KRW 5,261,104 for the year 2013 on the Plaintiff.

(2) Each of the above global income tax dispositions is subject to imposition of global income tax of this case and imposition of each of the above local income tax of this case. The imposition of each of the above local income tax of this case is subject to imposition of each of the above local income tax of this case.

The notice on each of the instant dispositions was sent from January 7, 2016 to January 8, 2016, and was served to the Plaintiff’s wife C on January 11, 2016. The Plaintiff paid KRW 3,860,710, total amount of eight times from August 22, 2016 to January 31, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry Eul's Evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul's Evidence Nos. 1, 1 (including branch numbers), the result of an order issued to the head of the Ulsan District Tax Office to submit tax information, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

3. Determination as to the main defense of the head of Ulsan District Tax Office’s main defense

A. The Plaintiff of the Ulsan Tax Office’s assertion that Defendant Ulsan Tax Office had not followed the lawful pre-trial procedure even after being served on January 11, 2016 with the notice on each of the dispositions of this case.

B. The relevant legal principles are sought for judgment 1.

arrow