Whether an income earner of Class A whose income tax was omitted may impose a comprehensive income tax on the income earner(affirmative)

Even if Class A earned income tax is to be collected, if the income is to be reported by adding it to the tax base for global income under the Income Tax Act, and the income is omitted, it may be levied as global income tax on the income earner.

Articles 4, 107, and 142 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu4 delivered on April 22, 1980, 79Nu444 delivered on June 10, 1980, and 79Nu430 Delivered on February 26, 1980

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Sung-dong Tax Office shall be the same as the litigation performer, the Yellowwon, and the number of Kim Jong-dong

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu136 delivered on October 23, 1979

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant did not impose income tax on the non-party corporation for business year 1974 and 1975 on the non-party corporation for the ground that 30,382,038 won out of corporate income in 1974 and 8,495,146 won out of corporate income in 1975 were recovered as recognition for each representative, and that the above corporation's representative director for business year 1974 did not impose income tax on the non-party corporation for business year 1,380,762,00 won in total on the non-party corporation's income for business year 1975 and the non-party corporation's income tax on the non-party corporation for business year 1975 was illegal, and that it did not impose income tax on the non-party corporation's income for business year 1,380,000 won in total on the non-party corporation's income tax amount for business year 1974 and it did not belong to the plaintiff.

However, according to the Income Tax Act before the amendment of December 24, 1974, the plaintiff's income in 1974 is Class A, which is taxable income under Article 43 of the same Act, but the person who pays the income tax at source under Article 59 of the same Act and Article 123 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, who is a general person subject to global income tax at least three million won, is obliged to pay the global income tax at source. The person liable to pay global income tax at source under Articles 65 and 66 of the same Act shall also pay the total annual income tax and the prescribed global income tax at source under Article 67 of the same Act, which shall be calculated by deducting the above global income tax base from the calculated global income tax under Article 63 of the same Act, which shall be calculated by deducting the above calculated global income tax from Article 64 of the same Act.

Therefore, the court below did not decide whether the plaintiff's income in this case was the income subject to each global income tax by filing a report on addition to the global income amount or the global income tax base under each income tax law as above, but did not decide whether the plaintiff's income in this case is the income subject to each global income tax. As such, the court below judged that the defendant's disposition of this case against the plaintiff was unlawful as a disposition of imposition by misunderstanding the legal principles on the withholding of income tax in this regard. Thus, the judgment of the court below is

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young, Kim So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Kim So-young, Lee So-young