Seoul High Court 2012Nu15472 (Law No. 18, 2013)

National Tax Service Review Income 2011-0044 (201.30)

The exclusion period of 10 years shall be applied by committing fraud or other unlawful acts, such as the transfer of registration due to a false reason.

It is reasonable to apply 10 years to exclusion period in light of the following: (a) It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff had committed fraudulent means or other active acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes by dancing the Plaintiff’s name concerning the forest of this case, which is received as brokerage commission by performing the act of registration of ownership transfer

2013du4507 Global income and revocation of disposition, etc.

Park AAA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu15472 Decided January 18, 2013

July 11, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 4

The court below determined that the plaintiff received the forest land of this case as a broker for the forest land of this case with completion of mediation of the forest land of this case 000 in light of the following circumstances: (a) after the plaintiff arranged the sale and purchase of the forest land of this case 000 OO, which is the seller on September 16, 2003, OO, KimO, OO, and OOO, which is the buyer, from OOO on October 29, 2003; (b) after the plaintiff borrowed the name of OO, which is the plaintiff's land, received the registration of transfer of ownership as to 3,55 o, the forest land of this case from OO; and (c) the plaintiff received the forest land of this case from OO as a broker for the forest land of this case. Although the forest of this case cannot be viewed as a brokerage fee, the judgment of the court below is unlawful, or there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence or evidence adopted by the court below.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s commencement of real estate sales business on January 20, 199 and the Plaintiff’s activity as a dealer in 2003, and that the Plaintiff’s supply of the above real estate brokerage service and received the forest land of this case as a broker fee can be deemed to have been conducted in the position of the business entity. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly adopted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the meaning of “business entity” or the subject of value-added tax, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

Article 26-2 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7008, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter the same) provides that in principle, five years of the exclusion period of national taxes shall be set (Article 3). However, in cases where a taxpayer evades national taxes, or is refunded or deducted by fraudulent or other unlawful means, the exclusion period of national taxes shall be extended by ten years from the date on which the national taxes can be imposed (Article 1).

The court below determined that the exclusion period of imposition of value-added tax and global income tax for the second period of 2003, which was evaded by the plaintiff, is 10 years, on the ground that the plaintiff's series of actions related to the forest of this case related to the forest of this case constitutes "Fraud or other unlawful acts" under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the exclusion period of imposition of value-added tax and global income tax for the second period of 2003, which were evaded by the plaintiff, is 10 years. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above provisions and related legal principles and records, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "Fraud or other unlawful acts" under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, or in excess of the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

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