In a case where the tax authority considers the tax liability to be determined by the return of a taxpayer for acquisition tax and takes it into account a collection disposition ordering the performance of the tax liability, whether the defect of the taxpayer’s report is succeeded to the collection disposition, which is a subsequent disposition (negative with qualification), and the standard for determining whether the act of taxpayer’s report constitutes abrupt invalidation

With respect to acquisition tax which adopts the method of tax payment, the tax authority shall be deemed to have determined the liability to pay acquisition tax by filing a tax return, and the collection disposition ordering the performance thereof shall be deemed to have been issued. Even if there is a defect in the taxpayer’s filing act, the defect shall not be succeeded to the collection disposition, which is a subsequent disposition, unless the defect does not fall under the grounds for the rightful invalidation. Whether the defect in the taxpayer’s filing act constitutes a legal invalidation as a matter of course due to a significant and apparent defect, shall be determined reasonably by considering the purpose, meaning, function, and legal remedies for the defective filing act, etc. of the relevant laws and regulations on the basis of the filing act,

Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 29(1)1 and 120(1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 73(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 97Da8427 delivered on November 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3758) Supreme Court Decision 97Da20373 delivered on December 12, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 264) Supreme Court Decision 99Da23284 delivered on July 27, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1778), Supreme Court Decision 99Da11618 delivered on April 27, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 1224 delivered on November 22, 2002), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da46102 delivered on December 26, 202 (Gong2003Sang, 159).

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Park Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu23737 delivered on October 11, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to the mistake of facts against the rules of evidence

The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged the facts that the plaintiffs comprehensively delegated the affairs necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership in the names of the plaintiffs by delivering the power of attorney and the certificate of personal seal, etc. necessary to obtain bank loans as collateral to the non-party office of a certified judicial scrivener office through the non-party re-transmission of the documents, etc., based on the adopted evidence. The court below held that the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are legitimate on the grounds that the fact-finding of the court below is ordinarily accompanied in the process of the registration of transfer of ownership of the commercial building of this case and the scope of business delegated by the plaintiffs is consistent with trade norms and empirical rules, etc.

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment and confirmation of tax liability

In the acquisition tax that adopts the method of tax payment, if the tax authority considers the taxpayer's liability to pay acquisition tax by filing a tax return, and takes it into account as a collection disposition ordering the performance of the tax return, even if there is a defect in the taxpayer's filing act, such defect does not succeed to the disposition of tax collection as it is, unless the defect does not constitute a ground for invalidation. Whether the defect in the taxpayer's filing of a tax return constitutes abrupt invalidation due to a significant and apparent defect shall be determined reasonably by considering the purpose, meaning, function, and legal remedies for the defective filing of a tax return as a basis for the filing of a tax return, and by individually identifying and determining specific circumstances caused by the filing

In the same purport, the court below held that the defendant did not have any error or error in the collection disposition of this case on the premise that the obligation to pay acquisition tax of this case is confirmed by the acquisition tax of this case, since such defect is a grave and obvious defect, even though it was not actually liquidated after the acquisition tax return of this case, such defect does not constitute a ground for invalidation. It is just in light of the above legal principles and records, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the establishment and confirmation of the acquisition tax liability as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiffs are not appropriate to invoke the instant case, unlike the instant case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)