Whether a notice of change in the amount of income on the representative is an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

Notice of change in the amount of income of a person to whom the income belongs shall not be deemed an act that directly affects the existence or scope of a tax liability for the person to whom the income belongs, and shall not constitute an administrative disposition

Article 21 (Establishment Date of Liability for Tax Payment)

Article 134 (Voluntary Payment by Additional Report)

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On October 5, 2007, the notice of change in income amount of 131,958,620 won issued by the defendant to the plaintiff on October 5, 2007 is revoked (the notice of change in income amount seems to be the clerical error in the notice of change in income amount).

1. Basic facts

A. On December 8, 1997, ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”) was established for the purpose of leasing and selling real estate, etc., and filed a report on business closure on April 30, 200, and completed the registration of dissolution on October 7, 2005 upon the order of dispersion issued by Seoul Central District Court 2004 non-conforming337 on October 10, 2005. The Plaintiff was working as the representative director of the instant company from February 27, 2001 to October 10, 2005.

B. The Defendant: (a) on February 2, 2001, sold the instant company’s share of 270,258/30,000 square meters at a voluntary auction procedure (the sales price of KRW 1,520,00,000) and 8,052 square meters of forest land and 2 lots owned by the instant company to Chungcheongnam-do (the amount of KRW 1,130,00,000), and on September 10, 2001, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change in the term of office in proportion to the estimated income amount of KRW 156,88,913,00,00; (b) on the ground that the instant company did not report corporate tax; (c) on September 10, 201, the Defendant sold the instant company’s share of 270,463 square meters at the same time (the amount of KRW 1,520,00,000,000) to the Plaintiff.

C. The plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 9, 2008 on the notification of this case on November 12, 2007, but was rejected on March 10, 2008.

D. On May 19, 2008, upon receipt of the instant notice, the Plaintiff did not report during the period for the additional reporter’s delay, and the head of the Gu’s Office of Government Tax notified the Defendant of the materials on recognized leisure income, and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax amounting to KRW 39,784,00 for the global income tax for the year 2001.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-5, 8, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The above expropriation compensation and sales price for forest land owned by the company of this case were paid to the creditors, and the income actually accrued to the company of this case was not entirely accrued. Thus, the above expropriation compensation and sales price were deemed to belong to the company of this case as unlawful.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

Article 21 (Establishment Date of Liability for Tax Payment)

Article 22 (Determination of Liability for Tax Payment)

Article 67 (Disposal of Income)

Article 68 (Special Cases concerning Estimation of Tax Base and Calculation of Tax Amount)

Article 104 (Estimated Decision and Revision)

Article 106 (Disposition of Income)

Article 20 (Earned Income Tax)

Article 70 (Final Return of Global Income Tax)

Article 80 (Determination and Correction of Income Tax Act)

Article 127 (Liability for Withholding Tax)

Article 128 (Payment of Income Tax Withheld)

Article 135 (Fictitious Payment Date of Labor Income Tax)

Article 158 (Penalty Tax on Insincere Payment of Withholding Tax)

Article 134 (Voluntary Payment by Additional Report)

Article 192 (Fictitious Payment Date of Dividend, Bonus, and Other Incomes Obtained by Disposal of Income) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

(1) In principle, an administrative agency’s disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to an agency’s act under the public law, and refers to an act directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or directly causing other legal effects with respect to a specific matter, and thus, an act that does not directly cause legal changes in the legal status of the other party or the person concerned does not constitute such act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu6889, Aug. 20,

(2) In a case where the tax authority’s disposition of income and notice of change in the amount of income is given, the tax withholding agent is deemed to have paid the relevant amount to the person to whom the income as stated in the notice was given on the date of receipt of the notice of change in the amount of income, and at the same time the liability to pay the income tax withheld is established, and the tax withholding agent is obligated to pay the withholding tax according to the details of the disposition of income recorded in the notice of change in the amount of income to the head of the competent tax office, etc. by the 10th day following the following day. If the person fails to pay it, the notice of change in the amount of income must be subject to penalty as well as criminal punishment. In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the notice of change in amount of income is a tax disposition directly affecting the corporate tax liability, which is the tax authority that is the person to whom

(3) However, unlike a corporation that is a withholding agent as above, in the case of a source taxpayer, as a matter of principle, only the person liable to collect and pay the source income tax does not bear direct tax liability; the person liable to pay income tax takes the method of filing a return differently from the duty to collect withholding taxes; thus, the specific tax liability of the person liable to pay income is not established or finalized due to the notification of change in income amount. Where the tax authority disposes of income, unlike the fact that the person liable to pay income as the withholding agent is established on the date when the notice of change in income amount was served on the corporation, if the person liable to pay income reaches income regardless of whether the notice of change in income amount was served on the corporation, the person liable to pay income tax falls under the category of "amount disposed as bonus" under Article 20 (1) 1 (c) of the Income Tax Act, and the person liable to pay income tax can not be deemed as having been subject to imposition of additional income tax after the expiration of the period of imposition of income tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du14716).

(4) Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the notice of change in the amount of income in this case is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.