Seoul High Court 2008Nu14601 ( December 02, 2008)

Whether additional charges and aggravated additional charges should be revoked for the remaining portion of the principal tax after adjustment.

Since it is apparent that the mediation recommendation is made to the effect that the amount exceeding a certain amount of the principal tax is revoked by making the amount of principal tax the amount of which is the standard, the additional dues and increased additional dues for the portion of the principal tax not reduced naturally remain, and additional dues or increased additional dues naturally

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined. However, the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal are not included in the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, and the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition

[Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu14601 ( December 02, 2008)]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition of additional 5,33,180 won on global income tax for the Plaintiff on July 11, 2007, and additional 13,065,950 won on global income tax for the year 2000, and additional 11,680,130 won on global income tax for the year 201 shall be revoked.

The court's explanation on this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap4178 (2008 May 06)]

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 5,33,180 on global income tax for the year 199 against the Plaintiff on July 11, 2007, each disposition of imposition of KRW 11,680,130 on global income tax for the year 200, additional 13,065,950 on global income tax, and additional 11,680,130 on global income tax for the year 201 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of each entry and pleading in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1 through 3, 1-1 through 3, 2-1 through 3, and 2-1 through 3, and 2-1 through 3:

A. On April 1, 2005, the Defendant newly calculated the Plaintiff’s total amount of income, etc. to be omitted from the initial global income tax return, and notified the Plaintiff of an increase or decrease in the amount of KRW 30,087,120 as global income tax for 199 as global income tax for 200, KRW 88,442,60 as global income tax for 200, KRW 54,645,880 as global income tax for 201 (including additional tax) (hereinafter “each of the dispositions in this case”), and “The Plaintiff dissatisfied with it, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of each disposition in this case as 206Guhap3780, and received a favorable judgment on June 30, 206 with the Defendant’s revocation of each disposition in this case’s global income tax return for 305 years as global income tax for 206Nu17675, KRW 209, KRW 3809 as global income tax for 205 years.

2. If the defendant makes a disposition of correction under the above paragraph (1), the plaintiff immediately withdraws the lawsuit of this case, and the defendant consents thereto.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

C. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to accept all the mediation recommendations of the above division. Accordingly, the defendant decided to correct the global income tax by reducing the amount of each disposition of this case from 14,493,211 won among the global income tax for the year 1999, and the amount of 49,314,062 won among the global income tax for the year 200 and the global income tax for the year 20,493,80 won among the global income tax for the year 2001 (as a result, the amount of tax remaining after the reduction was determined as the above mediation recommendation amount, but the difference is due to the fractional disposition).

D. On July 11, 2007, the Defendant calculated additional charges and aggravated additional charges for the delinquent period from April 1, 2005 to July 11, 2007, which was the due date of each of the dispositions of this case, from the date of the payment of each of the dispositions of this case on April 1, 2005, to the date of July 11, 2007, and collected additional charges and aggravated additional charges for the global income tax of KRW 5,33,180 for KRW 15,59,00 for KRW 15,593.90 for global income tax of KRW 13,065,950 for global income tax of KRW 39,128,540 for year 200, global income tax of KRW 34,152,00 for year 20 for global income tax of KRW 34,152,00 for year 20.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff

According to the recommendation of the mediation panel of the appellate court, the amount of the global income tax belonging to each year remains more than a certain amount of the global income tax, and the plaintiff was withdrawn from the lawsuit by accepting it, and the defendant's additional imposition and collection of additional dues in addition to the amount recognized in the recommendation of mediation should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Defendant

1) The instant defense

A) Since the instant global income tax surcharge amounting to the additional dues and aggravated additional dues as prescribed in Article 22 does not exist, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on the premise of the disposition of imposition is unlawful.

B) Even if a family disposition exists, the instant lawsuit is unlawful by failing to undergo a request for examination or adjudgment under paragraph (2).

2) The assertion on the merits

If national taxes are not paid by the due date pursuant to Article 22, it is natural to collect the additional dues and increased additional dues as a kind of incidental tax imposed in the meaning of interest for arrears on unpaid portion as a matter of course by the law without the due date of the person having the authority to impose the additional dues and increased additional dues. As such, it is natural to collect the additional dues and increased additional dues by adding them to the principal tax for the amount of the tax corrected according to the recommendation for adjustment as well as the amount of the tax corrected according to Article 22, as well as

3. Relevant statutes;

National Tax Collection Act

Article 21 (Additional Dues)

If national taxes are not paid in full by the payment deadline, additional dues equivalent to 3/100 of the national taxes in arrears shall be collected from the date on which the payment deadline expires: Provided, That this shall not apply to the State and local governments (including associations of local governments

Article 22 (Additional Dues)

(1) If national taxes in arrears are not paid, a surcharge equivalent to 12/1,00 of the national taxes in arrears plus the surcharge under Article 21 (hereinafter referred to as "increased surcharge") shall be collected every time when one month elapses from the date on which the time limit for payment expires. In this case, the period for which the increased surcharge is additionally collected shall not exceed 60 months.

4. Determination

A. According to Article 22, if national taxes are not paid by the due date, the additional dues and aggravated additional dues are the kind of incidental dues imposed as a meaning of interest for arrears on unpaid portion. If national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date for payment by the due date, they are naturally created and finalized pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the same Act. If a person liable for taxation fails to pay national taxes by the due date without the due date for payment by the due date, he may urge the person liable for taxation to commence the collection of such national taxes. Thus, if the payment demand is unreasonable or procedural defects exist, he/she shall be able to object to the revocation lawsuit, but no additional dues and increased additional dues shall be imposed by the tax authority. However, if there is no demand for the payment by the due date after the due date for payment by the due date for the payment of national taxes, there is no additional dues or increased additional dues (Supreme Court Decision 200Du2013, Sep. 22, 200).

According to the facts in the future, on April 1, 2005, the Defendant issued each of the instant dispositions to increase the amount of global income tax on the ground that the Plaintiff’s return amount of global income tax was wrong, and thereafter, made a disposition to reduce or correct the amount of tax according to the recommendation of the instant mediation, and received taxes from the Defendant, and only collected additional charges and increased additional charges calculated pursuant to Article 22 in addition to the principal tax, and did not commit any act to determine additional charges or increased additional charges.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation on the premise of the existence of the disposition imposing additional dues and aggravated additional dues is unlawful, and the defendant's main defense to this point is with merit.

B. The purport of the instant recommendation was to revoke all the taxes exceeding the amount recognized in the recommendation after the Plaintiff calculated all the tax amount until the time. Since the Defendant accepted the recommendation, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay only the amount recognized in the recommendation, and in addition, additional dues and increased additional dues are not required. However, it is apparent that the instant recommendation was made to the effect that the portion exceeding the specified amount is revoked (e.g., the amount exceeding KRW 15,482,913 among the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 30,087,120 for the year 199, the additional dues and increased additional dues for the portion of the principal tax corresponding to the reduced amount is naturally extinguished, and the additional dues and increased additional dues are naturally remaining for the remaining amount) and the additional dues and increased additional dues are naturally generated by the law, and thus, there is no room for the tax authorities to determine whether to impose them arbitrarily.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is inappropriate, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the plaintiff's argument on the merits.