Whether it is legitimate to impose a tax on the tax official who made an erroneous report due to the wrong advice of the tax official in charge.

The taxation authority's confirmation and acceptance of the return on the profits accruing from the transfer of a taxpayer is merely an internal decision-making of the tax authority and cannot be deemed tax assessment. In addition, the tax authority can make a decision to impose the transfer income tax or make a decision to correct the transfer income tax whenever it does not fall within the exclusion period, unless the taxation authority

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 99Gu22676 delivered on January 19, 2000

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of the lower judgment

The reasoning of the judgment of the court concerning the instant case is that of the judgment below, except for the following additional statements, and therefore, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant unilaterally calculated capital gains tax without confirmation of facts, regardless of the degree of capital gains tax, regardless of whether the transfer gains tax actually accrued should be calculated as taxable subject to taxation. Thus, under Article 23(2) and (4)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5031, Dec. 29, 195; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 45(1)1 (a) of the former Income Tax Act, and Article 46(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14860, Dec. 30, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply), the transfer gains tax shall be calculated by deducting necessary expenses, such as acquisition value, from the transfer value, and the transfer value and acquisition value of land shall be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer and acquisition, and the Plaintiff's disposal is legitimate due to the lack of reasons for calculating capital gains tax based on the standard market price.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the imposition of the additional tax on negligent return and the additional tax on negligent return is illegal even though the Plaintiff made a voluntary report of transfer income tax immediately after transferring the land to a third party. Thus, under Article 121 (1) and (3) of the former Income Tax Act, when a taxpayer fails to file a final return on the tax base or makes a return below the amount of income to be returned, an additional tax on negligent return shall be paid, and when a taxpayer fails to pay the income tax or makes a payment below the amount of income to be paid, an additional tax on negligent return shall be paid respectively. Under tax law, an additional tax on negligent return shall not be considered as an administrative sanction imposed under the law in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose tax and the realization of a tax claim, if a taxpayer violates a return and tax obligation under the law without any justifiable reason, and the site of the law shall not be deemed as a justifiable reason (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du3532, Dec. 28, 199). The Plaintiff did not make a final report on the tax base return on the transfer income.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.