Seoul High Court 2013Nu1166 (2013.06.07)

Cho Jae-chul2012,005 ( October 31, 2012)

Correction related to rent of a lessor shall not fall under the grounds for subsequent request for correction.

The Defendant’s rectification of the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax of the lessor is merely a correction of the revenue amount of the under-reported rent, and cannot be deemed to have changed the ownership of the income from the rent, and the circumstances following the under-reported return of the necessary rent fall under the grounds for ordinary correction claim, and does not fall under the grounds for subsequent request

Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [Request for Correction, etc.]

2013Du13730 Revocation of revocation of request for rectification

KimA

ㅇㅇ세무서장

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu1166 Decided June 7, 2013

November 28, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

First of all, the lower court acknowledged that the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of less than the rent actually paid under an agreement with KimB while operating the instant business site from KimB, and returned and paid the comprehensive income tax by including it in necessary expenses. However, the Defendant’s return on sales by issuing the tax invoice of less than the actual rent, and that the Defendant corrected and notified the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax on KimB. Furthermore, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s correction of the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax on KimB was merely correcting the under-reported rent revenue amount of KimB, and did not change the ownership of the rent income from the Plaintiff to KimB, and that the Plaintiff’s global income tax base exceeds the tax base to be reported under the tax law on global income by underreporting the return of rent, which is necessary expenses, is merely the ordinary ground for filing a claim for correction under Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the Defendant’s correction of the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax cannot be deemed as the change or correction of the “income or other taxable object.”

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for ex post facto request for correction under Article 45-2 (2) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to such grounds, or in the omission of judgment.

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.