Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap62916

2013west 2244

Whether the exclusion period of imposition due to changes in the trade of gold bullion exporters may apply 10 years to the case of fraudulent or other unlawful acts.

It is unreasonable that a disposition imposed on the exclusion period of tax payment is unreasonable because it cannot be viewed as a fraud or other unlawful act due to changes in the trade of gold bullion exporters.

Value-Added Tax Disposition and Revocation of Secondary Tax Liability

oo Co., Ltd.

o Head of the tax office

National Rotations

November 19, 2014

December 3, 2014

1. All appeals filed by Plaintiff OO and POO and appeals filed by Defendant against Plaintiff OOO Co., Ltd. shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 560,373,260 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) imposed on Plaintiff OO on July 2, 2012, and the Defendant revoked the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 560,373,260 (including additional tax) for the first period of 2004 on Plaintiff OOO on August 20, 2012; the Defendant designated Plaintiff GOO and GOO as the secondary taxpayer of the Plaintiff OOO on August 20, 202; and on the same day, imposed the value-added tax of KRW 408,736,230 on Plaintiff BOO and OO for the first period of 204.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff bO, bO

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Plaintiff GabO and GabO is revoked. The Defendant, on August 20, 2012, designated Plaintiff GabO and GabO as the secondary taxpayer of the Plaintiff OO corporation, and on the same day, revoked the disposition imposing the value-added tax of KRW 408,736,230 on Plaintiff GabO and GabO for 68,477,470 each on the same day.

B. Defendant

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corporation's OOO shall be revoked. The plaintiff corporation's claim filed by OOOO shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, (b) pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Additional determination

The defendant asserts that the provision of the Framework Act on National Taxes on the exclusion period of imposition may be limited by the principle of good faith, so the exclusion period of imposition shall not be applied to the plaintiff company.

However, in light of the purport of the exclusion period system and the form of provision, if the application of the exclusion period is restricted by taking the principle of good faith, there is a concern for excluding the exclusion period provision. Moreover, it is difficult to deem that the deduction and refund of the input tax amount violates the principle of good faith as a ground for restricting the application of the exclusion period provision. There is no special circumstance to see that applying the exclusion period of five years to the Plaintiff Company in this case is contrary to the principle of good faith.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The appeal by the plaintiff Park O and Park O and all appeals by the defendant against the plaintiff company are dismissed.

December 5, 2014

Seoul High Court