It is controversial whether it is dissatisfied with the payment of the Cash Receipt fine even after the payment.

The reason for the reduction of 20% of the amount to be paid on the condition that the cash receipt is paid to the administrative fine is terminated without objection, and the omission should be considered as an omission, but the performance lawsuit against the omission by the administrative agency under the current Administrative Litigation Act is not allowed.

Article 117-2 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 15 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

2019Nu37396 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing a fine for negligence

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

August 23, 2019

September 27, 2019

1.The judgment of the first instance, including a claim that has been modified to reduce or exchange at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall not be less than 100,000 won per transaction to the plaintiff.

imposed by the Defendant on August 17, 2018, KRW 18,216,00, out of KRW 20,938,000, imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on August 17, 2018

the plaintiff (the plaintiff, in the first instance court, has not issued a cash training certificate to the plaintiff on August 17, 2018.

The revocation of an administrative fine of 20,938,000 won and the imposition of an additional tax of 2% on non-issuance of a tax invoice.

The part of the revocation of the disposition imposing an administrative fine for the first time in the trial is to reduce the purport of the claim as above.

Accordingly, the appeal has been reduced within the scope of the appeal, and 2% of the penalty tax has been claimed.

The part amended the purport of the claim by exchanging it)

1. Facts of recognition;

The reasons for this Court to be stated are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;

A. Part on the claim for the imposition of a fine

Articles 3 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act only provide for a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the omission by an administrative agency is illegal, and do not provide for a performance suit that requires an administrative agency to take a certain disposition against the omission of an administrative agency. Thus, a performance suit seeking a certain disposition against the omission of an administrative agency is not allowed under the current Administrative Litigation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu14018, Mar. 10, 1995). However, in this case, claiming an administrative fine against the defendant at least 100,000 won per transaction is a performance suit demanding an administrative agency to take a certain disposition, and thus, this part of the lawsuit by the plaintiff is unlawful under the current Administrative Litigation Act.

B. Part on the claim for revocation of the administrative fine

The reasons to be stated in this part are as stated in the third through fourth, fourth, and fourth, third, fourth, and fourth, third, third, and fourth, third, third, and fourth, third, third, and fourth, third, third, and fourth, third, third, third, and fourth, third, third, third, third,

3. Conclusion

The instant lawsuit is dismissed in entirety. The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim for reduction or exchange change in the trial, is modified as above (the appeal filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff for the imposition of 2% penalty tax on non-issuance of the tax invoice, was withdrawn from the exchange change in the litigation in the trial and the judgment of the first instance was invalidated).