Early High Court Decision 2008Du3728 ( October 15, 2010)

The imposition disposition of comprehensive real estate holding tax shall not be deemed a taxation subject to revocation litigation.

It is only a collection disposition for the collection of the final tax, and it cannot be viewed as a taxation subject to a revocation lawsuit, if the tax authority notifies that the reported matters should be paid the same as the reported matters without any correction.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

쇠鹬 쇠지鹬 3000 쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of comprehensive real estate holding tax on April 10, 2008 by KRW 22,131,389 and special rural development tax on KRW 4,426,27 shall be revoked.

쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The defendant filed a tax notice to the plaintiff on April 10, 208 on the ground that the plaintiff reported and paid the comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax for the year 207, 22,131, 631-4, 276, 276-1, 276-4, 276-1, 275-1, 275-29, 273-39, 275-40, 274-41 (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case") with respect to the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case") in the Incheon-Gu BB Dong BB Dong, Incheon-dong 630,631-4, 276-1, 276-4, 276, 275-1, 275-29, 270, 205.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 4, 5, each entry of evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Defendant is a comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax by filing a tax return, and the amount of tax is determined at the time when a taxpayer files a return on the tax base and amount of tax in the case of filing a return. Since the Plaintiff already determined the tax base and amount of tax by filing a report on the comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax for 2007 to the Defendant on December 15, 2007, the Defendant issued a notice of tax payment on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay taxes after filing

The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it is merely a claim for performance or an order for performance.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 1, it is recognized that on December 15, 2007, the plaintiff reported to the defendant on December 15, 2007 comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2007 less the deduction amount at the time of voluntary payment of the land of this case via the Internet, 21,467,448 won, special rural and fishing villages tax for 4,293,489 won (hereinafter referred to as "the voluntary payment report of this case")." against this, the plaintiff filed the voluntary payment report of this case under the plaintiff's name without being delegated with the authority of the plaintiff on the land of this case by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not notify other family members including the plaintiff. Thus, the voluntary payment report of this case is invalid because it is not sufficient to recognize it solely on the basis of each evidence No. 7 and No. 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

C. Comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax applicable to the instant case are taxes by the method of tax payment (in the case of comprehensive real estate holding tax, from January 1, 2007, the first tax payment was changed to the method of imposition after January 1, 2008, the enforcement date of the comprehensive real estate holding tax). In the case of the method of tax payment, the amount of tax shall be determined at the time when the person without the tax payment files a return on the tax base and amount of tax. The taxpayer is obligated to pay the amount of tax together with the return, and the taxpayer is merely liable to pay the tax base and amount of tax and notify the tax authority that the tax authority should pay the same amount of tax without any correction as reported, because the taxpayer did not pay the amount of tax and did not pay the amount of tax, it is a collection disposition for the collection of the final tax, and it cannot be deemed a taxation subject to the revocation lawsuit (see, e.g.,

In this case, the Plaintiff, on December 15, 2007, filed a return on the comprehensive real estate tax and special tax in agricultural and fishing villages for 2007 with the Defendant on December 15, 2007, and thus, the tax base and tax amount have been determined. Thus, even if the Defendant issued the above tax notice stating that the amount of tax should be included in the amount of tax to be returned at the time of voluntary payment and that the amount of tax should be paid in full, it is not a notice of tax assessment that newly determined the amount of tax, but merely a claim for the performance

D. If so, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax payment notice on April 10, 2008 on the premise that the Defendant’s duty payment notice constituted a tax imposition disposition is unlawful as it seeks the revocation of a non-existent disposition.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.