[1] In a case where a tax base return was filed within the statutory due date of return and a correction disposition was made, but the tax base and tax amount after the correction exceed the tax base and tax amount to be reported under the tax law, whether the request for correction of reduction may be made within 2 years after the statutory due date of return expires, regardless of whether the period of filing a petition for

[2] The case holding that the taxpayer's act of collecting franchises and receiving money in the name of franchise from franchisees constitutes "the case where the transaction of goods or services is actually engaged in monetary transactions without almost anything else," and thus, the taxpayer's refusal of a request for reduction or correction of tax amount in the disposition of value-added tax is illegal even though the part of the monetary transaction is not subject to value-added tax, and thus the part of the disposition of imposing value-added

[1] In light of the language and text of Article 45-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7582, Jul. 13, 2005) and the purport of the system for claiming correction of reduction, etc., a person who filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return may request correction of reduction within two years after the statutory due date of return, regardless of whether the tax base and tax amount after correction exceeds the tax base or tax amount to be reported under the tax law, if the tax office’s subsequent disposition of correction exceeds the tax base or tax amount to be reported under the tax

[2] The case holding that the taxpayer's act of collecting franchises and receiving money in the name of franchise from franchisees constitutes "the case where the transaction of goods or services is actually engaged in monetary transactions without almost anything else," and thus, the taxpayer's refusal of a request for reduction or correction of tax amount in the disposition of value-added tax is illegal even though the portion of the monetary transaction is not subject to value-added tax, and thus the part falling under the monetary transaction should be corrected

[1] Article 45-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7582 of July 13, 2005) / [2] Article 45-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7582 of July 13, 2005), Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Nu22301 decided May 10, 2007

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the second ground for appeal

Article 45-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7582, Jul. 13, 2005; hereinafter the same) provides that "Any person who has filed a return of tax base within the statutory due date of return may request the head of a competent tax office to determine or correct the tax base and amount of the national tax for which the initial return and the revised return are filed (where the tax base and amount of tax are determined or corrected under the provisions of each tax-related Act, referring to the tax base and amount after such determination or correction are made) in excess of the tax base and amount to be reported under the tax-related Acts, within two years after the statutory due date of return expires. In light of the language and text, contents, purpose of the request for reduction or correction, etc. of the above provision, where the tax base and amount of tax after correction exceeds those to be reported under the tax-related Acts, it is reasonable to view that a person who has filed the return of tax base within the statutory due date of return after correction, regardless of whether the period of a request for reduction or correction.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the request for reduction and correction under Article 45-2 (1) of the former Framework Act

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that the plaintiff's act of collecting the franchise franchise franchise franchise franchise store in this case and receiving money from the franchise owner constitutes a case where the transaction of goods or services was actually conducted without any delay, and the value-added tax cannot be imposed on such part of the monetary transaction. Thus, the court below determined that the defendant's rejection of the plaintiff's request for correction of reduction without any delay, even though it was necessary to correct the portion of the monetary transaction in this case's disposition of value-added tax.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the taxable object of value-added tax as otherwise alleged

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)