Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap58697 (Law No. 29, 2016)

Where a notice of tax payment of agricultural special tax increased by secondary correction is not served, and thus becomes void automatically, it shall be deemed that the agricultural special tax already determined is void annually.

(In addition, as with the judgment of the court of first instance, the second disposition of this case excluding the unlawful portion due to the lack of qualifications subject to the imposition of special rural development tax excluding the remaining portion due to the lack of qualifications subject to the imposition of special rural development tax, and thus,

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 9 (Notification, etc. of Tax Payment)

2016Nu60692 Invalidity of the imposition of capital gains tax, etc.

HongA

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap58697 decided July 29, 2016

November 2016

December 1, 2016

1. The part against the Plaintiff regarding confirmation of invalidation under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

Of imposition of KRW 2,647,130 on May 30, 2012, the Defendant imposed special rural development tax on the Plaintiff.

2,439,180 Won is found null and void.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 13/14 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant confirmed that the imposition of the capital gains tax of 00,000,000,000 won for the transfer income tax of 1 May 2012, and the imposition of the tax of 0,000,000 won for local income tax of 0,000,000 won for special rural development tax of 30 May 30, 2012, as well as the imposition of the tax of 0,00,000 won for the special rural development tax of 0,000 won for the first instance (the plaintiff corrected the date of imposition

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of some contents, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

Addition or height shall be the part

○ Part 3 of the third side "the second part of this case" (hereinafter "the second part of this case") is "the second part of this case".

○ The Tax Tribunal shall add “1 January 25, 2016” to the following:

Part 15 of the 3rd page "Judgment on the legitimacy of the lawsuit" is "2. Judgment on the legitimacy of the lawsuit".

○ The 4th page 19 "for the defendant" is called "for the plaintiff".

○ From 5th page 19 to 6th page 1, the following contents are followed:

Although continuing to exist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3909, Aug. 22, 1995). Such circumstance alone does not lead to the conclusion that there is no benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of imposition of imposition of KRW 2,439,180, other than the unlawful portion due to lack of eligibility among the disposition No. 2 of this case.

C. Sub-committee

Imposition of local income tax and imposition of 2,647,130 won for special rural development tax among the lawsuit of this case

The part seeking confirmation of invalidity of each part exceeding KRW 2,439,180 is illegal because it does not meet the requirements of lawsuit. However, the part seeking confirmation of invalidity of imposition of KRW 2,439,180 is lawful, and the disposition is null and void.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking confirmation of invalidation exceeding KRW 2,439,180 among the imposition disposition of local income tax and special rural development tax of KRW 2,647,130 is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of the remaining imposition disposition of KRW 2,439,180 is accepted as well as the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 2,439,180 is dismissed as there is no ground. The part concerning imposition disposition of the remaining special rural development tax of KRW 2,439,180 in the judgment of the court of first instance on the remaining imposition disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 2,439,180 is improper as the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and it is confirmed that the remaining imposition disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 2,439,180 is invalid,