Whether a recognition and a recognition and recognition disposition under the Corporate Tax Act can be subject to an independent appeal litigation (negative)

Although the disposition by the defendant (the director of the tax office) is notified pursuant to Article 198(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition against which the plaintiff corporation is liable to withhold or pay taxes, so it cannot be an independent appeal litigation.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 150(4) of the Income Tax Act, Article 198 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu589 delivered on June 26, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 84Nu152 delivered on August 21, 1984

Korea Ninna Corporation

Head of Guro Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu734 delivered on May 12, 1983

All appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

The defendant's taxation of the corporate tax and defense tax against the plaintiff corporation of this case was made by adding the amount of 219,560,708 won to the final return of the business year (from January 1, 78 to December 31, 78) of 1978, on the ground that there was an omission of sales in the amount of 219,560,708 won to the final return of the business year (from January 1, 78 to December 31, 78), and considering the records of the judgment (Evidence A No. 13) cited by the theory of lawsuit, it is clear that the business year recognized that there was an omission of sales to the plaintiff corporation was not the business year of 1978, and the judgment

The issue is that there is no evidence to prove that there was an omission of sales, such as the Defendant Director, in the business year 1978, by misunderstanding the contents of Gap evidence No. 13, the judgment below is groundless since there is an omission of sales, which found the facts contrary to the facts found in the rules of evidence, the illegality of the incomplete hearing and the final

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

Since the defendant's notification of income change in the bonus disposition under the Corporate Tax Act is given to the plaintiff corporation pursuant to Article 150 (4) of the Income Tax Act and Article 198 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the plaintiff corporation's notification of income change is considered to have been made to the beneficiary on the day when the defendant's notification of income change is received. On the other hand, it is like the theory that the plaintiff corporation's income tax of the beneficiary automatically confirmed according to the payment system should be withheld and paid pursuant to Articles 142 and 143 of the Income Tax Act. However, it is nothing more than the fact that the plaintiff corporation's tax withholding and payment obligation is recognized as being paid to the beneficiary, so it is automatically established at the time of payment request, and it is nothing more than the defendant's obligation imposed by the defendant's bonus disposition or income change notification. However, even if the defendant's notification of income change was made pursuant to the provisions of Article 198 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition by the plaintiff corporation's.

With respect to the second ground:

The plaintiff's purport of the claim to revoke the defendant's constructive appropriation of KRW 219,560,708 on September 30, 1981 cannot be deemed as including the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the defendant's tax notice of Class A earned income and defense tax (collection disposition) on December 19, 1981 later, as in the plaintiff's lawsuit. Thus, the court below did not need to examine whether the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above recognition and the plaintiff's tax payment notice was issued while examining the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above recognition and it does not have any duty and duty to examine whether or not there was a tax payment notice. The court below's decision does not contain an error of law in the incomplete deliberation due

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju