Seoul High Court 2011Nu1708 (Law No. 17 August 2011)

Seocho 207west 2816 (Law No. 18, 2008)

Where the disposition of imposition on the principal taxpayer is revoked ex officio, the validity of the disposition of imposition on the secondary taxpayer.

Since the imposition of additional tax on the secondary taxpayer for the additional payment of value-added tax cannot be deemed to have been revoked as a matter of course, the second taxpayer's revocation of the imposition of additional tax on the additional payment of value-added tax on the principal taxpayer cannot be deemed to have been revoked, the second taxpayer's revocation of the additional

Article 22 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011du22099 Disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

LAA

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu7108 Decided August 17, 2011

Of the judgment below, the part on the additional payment for the first term and second term value-added tax in 2003 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining appeal is dismissed.

1. Prior to the determination on the grounds of appeal, the part concerning the imposition of additional tax for the first and second period portion of the value-added tax in 2003 is determined ex officio. The second tax liability is established separately from the main tax liability, or is premised on the existence of the main tax liability. As such, the grounds for the second tax liability, in principle, have the so-called secondary nature that may affect the second tax liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du14926, Jan. 15, 2009). However, the notice of payment to the second tax obligor has the nature of an independent tax disposition independent from the disposition of the main tax obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du11750, Oct. 23, 2008). Thus, the lower court’s revocation of the imposition of additional tax for the second tax for the second tax obligor by deeming that the second tax obligor’s ex officio revocation of the imposition of the second tax on July 20, 2008. Nevertheless, the lower court’s revocation.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the remaining part of the disposition imposing additional tax for arrears. The court below, citing the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding. In light of the criminal punishment relationship against the behavior, distribution channel, quantity and value of the gold bullion transaction in this case, and related customer operators, etc., the non-party company was aware of, or did not know by gross negligence, the circumstance that the non-party company was aware of, the fact that the non-party company was engaged in abnormal illegal transactions which are deemed only losses if it was created only for the purpose of evading the value-added tax for the purpose of evading the output transaction in the series of transaction at the time of the transaction of the gold bullion transaction in this case and did not evade it. In light of the relevant legal principles, the court below's aforementioned measures are just and acceptable, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the empirical rule as prescribed in Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes or the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the facts contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part on the additional payment for the first term and second term value-added tax of 2003 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent