Seoul High Court 2011Nu37314 (Law No. 10, 2012)

There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the invalidity of a taxpayer of comprehensive real estate holding tax or administrative action or the validity of judgment.

In order to say that the taxation disposition is void as a matter of course, it is not sufficient to say that there is an illegality reason, and that the defect is a serious violation of the important part of the laws and regulations, and it is objectively obvious

Supreme Court

Part III

2012Du1228 Revocation of Disposition of Taxation

00

000 000000

Law Firm 000

Attorney 000, 000, 000

00. Head of tax office

Litigation performers 000, 000, 000,000

The Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu37314 decided May 10, 2012

March 27, 2014

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the main claim

The lower court, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, determined that Article 50(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which applies mutatis mutandis to the filing of an objection pursuant to Article 54(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, provides that a request for review shall be made based on a request for review stating certain matters, so the Plaintiff’s oral objection to the employee in charge of the Defendant is unlawful, and that the filing of an objection on January 21, 201, which was made by the Plaintiff after the lapse of 90 days from July 1, 2010 when the Plaintiff received the notice of the instant disposition, is unlawful,

Examining the relevant provisions and legal principles in light of the records, such determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the procedure of the preceding trial in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax disposition. Supreme Court Decision 2011Du26886 Decided March 29, 2012 cited in the grounds of appeal is different from the case and thus, it

2. As to the conjunctive claim

A. In order for a taxation to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the taxation disposition is insufficient, and the defect must be objectively obvious and significant as it violates the important part of the law. When determining whether it is significant and apparent, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law, which serves as the basis for the taxation disposition, should be examined teleologically and reasonably at the same time, in addition, in a case where a taxation disposition is made by applying the provisions of a certain law to certain legal relations or factual relations, it is clearly stated that the legal principles that the provisions of the law are not applicable to such legal relations or factual relations, and that there is no room for dispute over the interpretation, if the taxation disposition is made by applying the provisions of the law, it is obvious that the defect is significant and obvious.However, if there is any objective reason to believe that the legal relations or factual relations, which are not subject to the administrative disposition, are subject to the disposition, and it can only be clarified whether it is subject to the disposition, even if it is serious and obvious (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da268686.

Meanwhile, according to Articles 2 subparag. 6 and 12(1) of the former Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9273 of Dec. 26, 2008), a person who is liable to pay property tax on land under Articles 181 and 183 as of the tax base date and whose aggregate amount of the publicly notified price of land subject to general aggregate taxation exceeds 300 million won is liable to pay comprehensive real estate tax. Article 183 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1021 of Mar. 31, 2010) provides that a person liable to pay property tax shall be a person who actually owns property as of the tax base date.

B. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff’s mother died on January 11, 200 and succeeded jointly to the property of the Deceased; (b) the instant land was subject to the transfer registration under the name of the Deceased without completing the registration of inheritance until June 1, 2008, which is the assessment basis date of the property tax and the comprehensive real estate tax; (c) the Plaintiff’s owner of the instant land could not be deemed to have purchased the instant land from the Deceased on August 30, 200, without filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff,00 and the other children; and (d) the Plaintiff was subject to the reduction of the Plaintiff’s comprehensive real estate tax on October 28, 200, by deeming the remaining portion of the property tax under the name of the co-inheritors, which was the real estate tax assessment tax base date of 00,000, which was the Plaintiff’s total real estate tax for 100,000 won or less; and (d) the Plaintiff’s comprehensive real estate tax on October 28, 2001,2009.

C. In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the judgment of the court below. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the invalidity of or the validity of judgment on the taxpayer of comprehensive real estate holding tax or administrative act,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Decision 20

In-bok

Justices Park Jae-young

Min Il

Justices Park Jae-young

Park Security Service

Justices Park Jae-hoon

Shin