Seocho 2013west 4786 (2014.07.04)

The tax amount shall be calculated by deducting the excessive return amount from the total gross income amount of global income tax reported by the Plaintiff and adding the omitted revenue amount.

The tax amount shall be calculated by deducting the excessive return amount from the total amount of global income tax reported by the Plaintiff and adding the omitted revenue amount, and the excessive return amount exceeds the omitted revenue amount which was the basis of the disposition in this case.

2014Guhap15849 global income and revocation of disposition

IsaA

The Director of the sericultural Tax Office

February 27, 2014

March 20, 2015

1. On October 2, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition imposing global income tax amounting to KRW 117,314,30 for the Plaintiff in 2009, KRW 70,909,100 for the year 2010, and KRW 38,010,640 for the year 201 is revoked.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 15, 2007 to October 15, 2007, the Plaintiff operated an OO hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”). From February 27, 2012 to 14-10, the Plaintiff moved its place of business to BB hospital and completed the global income tax return from 2009 to 2011. B. The Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff on the amount of insurance benefits received, non-life insurance and bus and bus and taxi area mutual aid association (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s global income tax return”) and the Plaintiff’s global income tax return on global income, based on the Plaintiff’s omission (the amount reverted to 252,019,313, the amount reverted to 2009, 153, 2010, 2010, 2013, 2010, 2010, 2013, 2010, 2013, 2010, 2013, 2013.

C. On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On July 4, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “The Tax Tribunal re-examines the omitted income amount based on the Plaintiff’s insurance benefit amount and the Plaintiff’s reported income amount, thereby correcting the tax base and tax amount according to the result.”

D. On August 22, 2014, the Defendant conducted a reinvestigation in accordance with the foregoing decision, and notified the Plaintiff of the results of reinvestigation on the same tax base and tax amount as the instant disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, 18, 19 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if only the amount of revenue from the National Health Insurance Corporation, which accounts for the largest portion of the Plaintiff’s insurance benefits, exceeds the amount of the Plaintiff’s excessive return (38,175,238, the amount reverted to year 2009, the amount reverted to year 2010, KRW 379,286,810, the amount reverted to year 201, and KRW 160,741,750) calculated by the Defendant, each under-reported amount (the amount reverted to year 2009, KRW 252,019, KRW 313, the amount reverted to year 2010, KRW 153,026,335, the amount reverted to year 2010, KRW 92,540,908). Thus, the disposition of this case on the premise that the Defendant’s excessive return and under-reported amount were unlawful.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

1) A disposition of increased tax base and tax amount is not a disposition of additional determination of the tax base and tax amount originally reported by the original taxpayer or the tax amount determined by the tax authority as they are, but rather, a single tax base and tax amount are determined again, including the tax base and tax amount determined in the initial return or determination. Thus, without regard to whether the objection period against the initial return or determination has expired, only the disposition of increased tax becomes subject to adjudication on appeal litigation without regard to whether the initial return or determination exceeds a legitimate tax amount. In an appeal litigation seeking revocation of increased tax amount, the determination of whether the initial return exceeds a legitimate tax amount or whether the initial return or the tax authority’s reason for increased tax amount exceeds a legitimate tax amount, and both an appeal litigation on the initial return or tax disposition is merely an unlawful reason supporting the illegality of the increased tax base and tax amount. An appeal suit on the increase tax base and tax disposition is a means of objection with the same purpose to determine the existence of a legitimate tax base and tax amount. In light of the fact that it is inconsistent with the protection of taxpayer’s rights and interests or the litigation economy, a taxpayer’s tax base reported on global income tax return can be asserted (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013130.

According to Gap evidence 1- 3, Gap evidence 5-3, Eul evidence 9-3, Eul evidence 2-14-14-2, 200 + 30, 270, 370, 368, 248, 360, 460, 967, 97, 200, 97, 206, 97, 206, 97, 97, 200, 306, 97, 206, 97, 30, 97, 97, 200, 96, 96, 200, 30, 97, 206, 96, 306, 97, 205, 196, 306, 97, 200, 196, 306, 200

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.