Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-7549 ( October 20, 2017)

Cho Jae-2015-Seoul Government-2364 (29 June 2016)

The preceding judgment, which judged otherwise taxpayers, constitutes grounds for filing a subsequent request for correction, but does not constitute grounds for correction for a person who was not a party to the preceding judgment.

In order to be recognized as a judgment which is the ground for filing a subsequent request for correction, the person who has the right to file a subsequent request for correction shall be the party, etc. of the lawsuit, and in the case of a judgment on the disposition of tax imposition which is the period of taxation, it shall not be the ground for filing a subsequent

Article 45-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Etc., ex post facto reasons

2017Nu84381 Disposition rejecting the rectification of value-added tax

KimA

Head of PP Tax Office

May 29, 2018

June 26, 2018

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

A taxpayer of the value-added tax (including additional tax) listed in attached Table 1 shall be revoked on March 23, 2015, where the Plaintiff’s claim for correction was filed by correcting that the BB Development Cooperatives and the Plaintiff did not have joint and several tax liability.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. As to the claim for correction of value-added tax from 2006 to 1, 2010 listed in attached Table 1, the defendant's refusal of disposition on March 23, 2015 shall be revoked.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the judgment in this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts and any additional part, thereby citing it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ At the bottom of the judgment of the first instance court, 3 e.g., at the following end:

The value-added tax was reported and paid from the first to the second period of 2008, and the above value-added tax was reported and paid by partners including the plaintiff et al. as joint business operators of the association of this case. After that, the defendant issued the notice of the corresponding amount and the amount of the increased amount of tax for each taxable period, the corresponding amount were corrected and notified, and the members including the plaintiff et al. were designated as joint taxpayers.

○○ The last 2014. 7. 29. 7. 24. 'the last 2014.', 'the 4th 5th 'the 5th ' October 15, 2014', ' October 23, 2014, 'the 7th 'the 25th 'the 2016th 'the 25th 'the 2015 March 25, 2015' respectively.

○ The content of “5 pages” in the judgment of the first instance court is changed to that of “related Acts and subordinate statutes” as shown in Attachment 2 of this judgment.

○ The following shall be added to 7th day of the judgment of the first instance court:

(1) Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates that a judgment of an administrative case does not fall under "judgments" under Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and only civil cases fall under "judgments". However, Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates that a judgment is simply "judgments" without specifying the type of litigation on the grounds of a subsequent request for correction, and even in administrative or criminal cases not only civil cases but also civil cases, transactions or acts, etc., which served as the basis for calculating the tax base and the amount of tax, are sufficiently disputed in the trial process and accordingly the judgment becomes final and conclusive to be different.

The Supreme Court Decision 2017Du41740 Decided September 7, 2017 referred to as "Supreme Court Decision 2017Du41740 Decided September 7, 2017" shall be hereinafter referred to as "Supreme Court Decision 2017Du41740 Decided September 7, 2017."

○ At the bottom of the 9th judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

5) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A) The Defendant asserts that the direct return and payment of the value-added tax stated in the Attachment No. 1 are the instant partnership. However, the Defendant asserts that the right to request for correction is merely the instant partnership. However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier and the statement No. 6-11, the value-added tax stated in the Attached Table No. 1 was reported and paid by all the members of the instant association as joint and several taxpayers, and the Defendant also designated the members of the Plaintiff et al. as joint and several taxpayers, and issued a disposition of increase or decrease. Accordingly, the first Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

B) The defendant asserts that, through the Seoul* District Court Decision 200XNa0000 decided December 21, 2004 (the reference reference materials for the documents submitted by the defendant as of June 201, 2017), the legal nature of the union of this case was already judged as an unincorporated association, and that the union members including the plaintiff have recognized this fact around that time, the subsequent request for correction in this case, which the plaintiff must take place around September 2014, is deemed unlawful since the period for filing a request for correction expires. However, even upon examining the civil judgment above, it is difficult to view the contents as the subject of the claim for the return of the sale price of the commercial building of this case, and it is difficult to regard the "transaction or act, etc. which is the basis for calculating the tax base and the amount of tax" as the subject of the claim for correction as stipulated in Article 45-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the plaintiff was not the party concerned. Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim for correction was lawfully made within July 29, 2019, etc.

2. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit.