Whether a notice of change in the amount of income to an individual is an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

The notice of change in income amount issued to an individual who is the person to whom the income amount belongs cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that directly affects the rights and duties of the taxpayer, so the lawsuit of this case seeking its revocation is unlawful

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act [Disposition of Income]

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 defendant shall revoke on July 21, 2006 the notification of the change in the amount of income made against the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this court's explanation is as stated in the first instance court's reasoning, except for the change of "6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 2002.13th 2002.13th 2002", "Article 192.1th 8th 3rd 8th 8th 2nd 8th 2nd 2nd 3rd 2002", "the due date for payment" to "the due date for payment" to "the due date for payment" as stated in Article 192.1.2th 2th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 200 of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Skcheon District Court 2007Guhap588, 2008)]

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of notification of change in income amount against the plaintiff on July 21, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. From May 16, 1991 to August 20, 201, the Plaintiff was the representative director of the non-party ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party ○○") that had its head office in ○○○-ri 377-12, but the non-party ○○-ri 377-12, 6578 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case") was completed on October 13, 2002 with respect to the ○○-ri 377-12, 000 square meters prior to the division of the head office.

B. On July 27, 2004, the defendant transferred 150,000,000 won of the real estate of this case to the head of ○○○○, and completed the liquidation of the price, but determined that the amount of the transfer price was included in the gross income without filing a return and payment of corporate tax for 2002 as to the transfer price, and it was unclear that the ownership was not known. In accordance with Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 8831 of Dec. 31, 2007) and Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18706 of Feb. 19, 2005), the non-party company disposed of the above transfer price as bonus to the ○○○, which was registered as the representative director of the non-party company, and the head of ○○ tax office, which was the competent tax office on ○○ on Sep. 10, 2004, imposed global income tax amounting 20084.

C. Accordingly, on August 18, 2005, ○○ filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above global income and disposition against the head of ○○ Tax Office as Seoul Administrative Court 2005Guhap25288, and on March 14, 2006, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment that the above global income and disposition of the head of ○○ Tax Office was unlawful on the ground that the real estate of this case was transferred to ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. and ○○○○○ through O○○ upon selling it to ○○ Development Co., Ltd. after the ownership transfer registration was made from the non-party company, the owner of the real estate of this case. The ownership transfer registration was completed in the middle of ○○○○○○○, without going through the intermediate transfer process, and was completed in the middle of the non-party company.

D. Accordingly, on July 4, 2006, the head of ○○ Tax Office revoked the detailed statement and disposition of the above global income as to ○○○○, and the Defendant again deemed the time of transfer of the instant real estate as the date of July 2001 and disposed of KRW 445,50,000 equivalent to the transfer price as bonus to the Plaintiff, who was the representative director of the non-party company, as the bonus income. On July 21, 2006, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change notice of income amount (Evidence 1-1) pursuant to Article 192(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

E. On October 18, 2006, the plaintiff filed a request with the National Tax Tribunal on the notice of change in the income amount of this case, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's request on June 18, 2007.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, and Eul evidence 3-1, each entry

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

On the ground that the notice of change in the amount of income in this case was unlawful, the defendant asserted that the notice of change in the amount of income in this case was unlawful since it did not affect the existence of global income tax liability or the law, but merely notified that the income amount belonging to the plaintiff in 2001 was changed, unlike the notice of change in the amount of income to a corporation directly related to the establishment and confirmation of the obligation to withhold taxes. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case does not constitute an administrative disposition

B. Relevant statutes

Income Tax Act

○ Deemed the date of payment of dividends, contributions, and other income pursuant to Article 192 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

(1) When the head of a tax office or the director of a regional tax office determines or revises the corporate income amount under the Corporate Tax Act, he/she shall notify the corporation concerned by a notice on change of income amount as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy within 15 days from the date of the determination or correction of the corporate income amount: Provided, That where the location of the corporation concerned is unclear or it is impossible to serve the notice, or where the corporation concerned falls under the provisions of Article 86 (1) 1, 2 and 4 of the National Tax Collection Act, he/she shall notify the relevant stockholder and the resident who is subject to the disposition of the relevant bonus

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8831 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "former Corporate Tax Act"), Article 106 of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19815 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act"), Article 20 (1) 1 (c) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "former Income Tax Act") and Article 100 subparagraph 24 of the former Enforcement Rule of Income Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 554 of Apr. 17, 2007), where a withholding agent and a corporation, who is a withholding agent, are obligated to pay taxes for a certain period of 20 years to the head of a tax office, which is subject to be imposed upon notice of change in income amount.

(2) However, even if the tax authority imposed on the pertinent corporation pursuant to the proviso of Article 192(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act notifies the Plaintiff that the amount of income was changed, which is the taxpayer to whom the said income belongs, regardless of this, it constitutes “amount disposed of as bonus under Article 20(1)1(c) of the former Income Tax Act” and thus becomes subject to taxation of wage and salary income. The pertinent amount of income is the time of providing labor during the pertinent business year subject to taxation (Article 49(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act). Thus, the Plaintiff’s liability to pay global income tax is established on the Plaintiff’s global income tax as well as upon the Plaintiff’s filing of a request for revocation on the tax base under Article 21(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 206). The Plaintiff’s filing of a request for revocation of the tax base for global income tax on the instant corporation’s non-resident’s tax return and its payment notice can be acknowledged.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking revocation is unlawful on the premise that the notice of change in the income amount of this case is an administrative disposition, and it is so decided as per Disposition.