(a) Whether a person who has failed to make a preliminary return of tax base is exempted from obligation to make a final return;

(b) Whether an additional tax may be imposed on failure to file a return, where a taxpayer voluntarily pays the tax amount before the final return period is filed;

A. A person who is exempted from the obligation to make a final return pursuant to Article 101 (1) 7-2 of the Income Tax Act, who is a resident with only the income accruing from the transfer and who made the profit accruing from the transfer. Therefore, even if he voluntarily pays by the prior guidance of the tax authority, the taxpayer who did not pay the tax base return is not exempted from the obligation to make the final return, and therefore, as long as the tax amount initially paid is not justifiable and did not make the final return on the tax base, the additional tax on negligent tax and the additional tax on negligent tax shall not be

B. Even if a taxpayer did not make a preliminary return or a final return, if he voluntarily pays the tax amount before the final return period pursuant to the tax authority’s prior guidance, no additional tax on negligent tax returns may be imposed on the portion of such voluntarily paid tax amount under the principle of good faith.

Article 101 (1) 7-2, Article 121 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu419 Decided April 28, 1987

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu738 decided Oct. 15, 1987

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

1. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal (the ground of appeal on supplement to the extent of supplement) is examined.

With respect to the First Ground:

According to the records, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing tax and the defense tax pointed out is clear that the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment below before remanding the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and confirmed.

In other words, the amount of additional tax on the transfer income tax that the judgment of the court below prior to the remanding of party members determined that the additional tax was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the additional tax, and the amount of the additional tax on the transfer income tax was not the tax base for the above defense tax and the defendant's amount of the tax voluntarily paid by the plaintiff was excluded from the tax base, so it is clear that the above defense tax base was not an unlawful ground for the reversal of the above judgment of remand.

Ultimately, the argument is based on the premise that the judgment of the court below prior to the remanding of the above defense tax, etc. was reversed and remanded to the court below.

The assertion is groundless.

With respect to the second ground:

Since a person who is exempted from the obligation to make a final return of capital gains pursuant to Article 101 (1) 7-2 of the Income Tax Act, who is a resident having only the obligation to make a final return of capital gains and who made the return of capital gains, a taxpayer who did not make a final return of capital gains shall not be exempted from the obligation to make the final return even if he voluntarily pays it by the guidance of the tax authority, and as such, as long as the tax amount originally paid is not justifiable and did not make the final return of capital gains, it shall not be deemed unlawful by imposing additional tax and additional tax on the portion exceeding the tax amount voluntarily paid at least the tax amount under the Income Tax Act (the same shall apply to the judgment of the party member's dismissal of the judgment of return of this case as stated in the judgment on the corresponding case). Therefore, the court below's decision to the effect that the Defendant's imposition of additional tax and additional tax on the remaining amount excluding 21,85,783 won paid by the plaintiff among the total tax amount

In addition, even if a taxpayer did not make a preliminary return or a final return, if he voluntarily pays the tax amount before the final return period under the guidance of the tax authority, there is no final return on the portion of the voluntarily paid tax amount under the principle of good faith, and thus no additional tax cannot be imposed on the tax amount. However, the above additional tax cannot be imposed on the tax amount, considering that there is a final return on tax amount corresponding to the tax amount paid. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the tax assessment on the amount equivalent to the additional tax on negligent tax returns on the tax amount paid by the plaintiff is legitimate and acceptable in the opinion of the court below, and as pointed out above, the amount of the tax on the tax

The assertion is groundless.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below decided that if a taxpayer did not make a preliminary return of transfer margin and did not notify the tax authority of the transfer income tax and the defense tax by the advance notice, and the taxpayer voluntarily pays the tax amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the advance notice, the transfer income tax shall be terminated, and if the taxpayer voluntarily pays the tax amount before the final return of transfer income tax is made, unless there are special circumstances such as mistake in the calculation of tax amount, etc., the tax authority cannot impose additional tax on the taxpayer because the taxpayer did not have the final return of transfer income tax even on the voluntary payment amount under the principle of good faith, unless there are special circumstances such as error in the calculation of tax amount. In light of the records, it is just and justified as it is in accordance with a legal opinion that is based on the grounds for

The assertion is groundless.

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

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)