Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap14542 ( October 12, 2015)

No penalty tax may be exempted in consideration of the personal and subjective circumstances of the taxpayer.

Expenses not presented for evidence shall not be deducted from necessary expenses, and additional tax shall not be reduced or exempted in consideration of the personal circumstances of the taxpayer.

2015Nu3858 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap14542 decided December 12, 2015

on October 1, 2016

on 14, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of the global income tax OO on October 8, 2012 against the plaintiff on the plaintiff on October 8, 2012.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments, and thus, the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. The plaintiff continued to file a lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff for various claims for damages and consultation in criminal cases for O, and therefore, the plaintiff could not file a income tax return on the contingent fee of the terminated arbitral award, and therefore, there is a justifiable reason to exempt the additional tax. However, the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff cannot be deemed a justifiable reason to exempt the additional tax. The plaintiff's argument is without merit. (B) The part of the penalty tax on an indefinite term in the disposition of this case, for which the defendant imposed the additional tax on the plaintiff, even though it is a tax practice, imposing a tax amount which is less than the amount of the under-reported additional tax and the under-reported additional tax on an indefinite term penalty, is in violation of the above tax practice, and there

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.