Suwon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-67163 ( October 10, 2018)

Global Income Detailed Invalidity and Invalidity of Disposition

The global income tax that the Plaintiff had already paid is determined and notified as a so-called occasional point, and as long as no data can be found to prove that the Plaintiff reported the tax base of global income, it is deemed that the Plaintiff did not report under-reported.

Article 26-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Period for Excluding Imposition of National Taxes)

2018Nu33809. Detailed global income and confirmation of invalidity of disposition

CHAPTER A

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2017Guhap67163 Decided October 10, 2018

on April 25, 2018

on October 30, 2018

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.

Around June 10, 2015, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of global income tax of KRW 1,163,723,510 (including additional tax of KRW 125,518,827 and additional tax of KRW 410,610,554) for the Plaintiff is null and void.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the 4th following the second judgment of the court of first instance is “CCC”; (b) the 6th judgment below is “FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFY 201”; and (c) the 6th judgment below is “FFFFFFFFFY 2015”; and (d) the 1st judgment of the court is identical to the part on the grounds of the first instance judgment (except for the part on the 3th judgment) in addition to the additional judgment as follows. As such, the 3rd judgment is cited as it is in accordance with

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff filed a return of tax base and paid the global income tax for the year 2008 on February 29, 2012, even if the Plaintiff’s return of global income tax for the year 2008 is less than the actual global income tax, omission of the return of income on the key amount constitutes a return of income, not a return of income but a return of income. Therefore, the exclusion period of imposition of global income tax on the key amount under Article 26-2(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes shall be five years.

The disposition is invalid in this respect because it is apparent that it was made five years after June 1, 2009, which was the initial date of the exclusion period of imposition.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Article 4 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that the global income shall be the total sum of interest, dividend, real estate rental, business income, earned income, pension income, and other incomes accruing during the corresponding year. Article 70 (1) of the same Act provides that "a resident who has global income in the corresponding year shall report the global income tax base to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment from May 1 to 31 of the year following the corresponding year under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree."

However, if Gap evidence Nos. 11-5, Gap evidence Nos. 12 and Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 8 collected the purport of the whole pleadings, the global income tax for the year 2008 that the plaintiff had already paid shall not file a final return of global income tax within the above statutory period, and on the ground that the plaintiff had not filed a final return of global income tax for the transfer of land other than each of the land of this case (such as Gyeonggi-gun ○○○○○ 79-1 et al.) 8,00 won acquired from DD with regard to the transfer of other land of this case (such as Gyeonggi-gun ○○○○ ○○ 79-1 et al.), the plaintiff's disposition was determined and notified as the so-called occasional amount pursuant to Article 80 (1) of the former Income Tax Act, which is irrelevant to the amount of 17,393,590 won, and the tax base prior to the above statutory period of imposition of global income tax for the year 2008,20.1.

3. Conclusion

If so, it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiff's claim as it is without merit. The conclusion is the same.

The judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.