Whether the two-year period for filing an application for rectification for liquor tax on imported alcoholic beverages under Article 38-3(2) of the former Customs Act is applicable (affirmative); and in a case where the tax authority refuses to rectify an application for rectification filed after the lapse of the period for filing an application for rectification, whether such application may be deemed a rejection disposition subject to appeal litigation (negative)

The purpose of Article 3(2) and Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010); Articles 4(1) and 38-3(2) and (3) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Customs Act”); Article 23(3) of the former Liquor Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9899, Dec. 31, 2009) provides for special cases concerning taxes imposed and collected by the head of a customs office as prescribed in Article 3(2) and Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010); thus, it is necessary to ensure the efficiency of taxation administration and equality among persons liable for duty payment, as well as the procedures for filing a request for rectification with respect to liquor tax imported.

In addition, since a request for correction filed after the lapse of the period for filing a request for correction is illegal and thus the tax authority has no obligation to decide or rectify the tax base and amount of tax or to take a disposition of refusal, it shall not be deemed a disposition of refusal subject to appeal even if the tax

Articles 3(2) and 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010); Articles 4(1), 38-3(2) and (3) (see current Article 38-3(4)); Article 23(3) of the former Liquor Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9899, Dec. 31, 2009);

Supreme Court Decision 2012Du27183 Decided December 11, 2014 (Gong2015Sang, 143)

Gab Bank Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Western, Attorneys Kim Byung-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Ansan

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu53997 decided October 28, 2014

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that “Any person who has filed a return of tax base within the statutory due date of return may file a request with the head of the competent tax office for the determination or correction of the tax base and amount of national tax for which the initial return and the revised return were filed, within three years after the statutory due date of return expires, in any of the following cases.” However, Article 3(2) of the former Customs Act provides that “where any special provision is provided for in this Act with respect to the national tax imposed and collected by the head of the competent tax office under the Customs Act and the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export, the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) shall prevail in the application of the former Customs Act.

Meanwhile, Article 23(3) of the former Liquor Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9899 of Dec. 31, 2009) provides that a person who imports alcoholic beverages shall submit a declaration under the Customs Act to the head of the competent customs office at the time of filing an import declaration. Article 38-3(2) of the former Customs Act provides that “When a person liable for duty payment becomes aware of an excessive amount of duty returned and paid (limited to a case where the period for filing an amendment expires), he/she may request the head of the competent customs office to correct the declared amount of duty within two years from the date of filing the first duty return as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In this case, the head of the relevant customs office shall, upon receiving a request for rectification, notify the person who requested that the amount of duty should be corrected or corrected within two months from the date of receiving the request that the person liable for duty payment should have no reason to correct it.”

B. As above, the purport of the special exception on taxes imposed and collected by the head of a customs office is to promote the efficiency of taxation administration and equity among persons liable for duty payment by allowing the head of a customs office to impose and collect taxes on imported goods, as well as customs duties, so the objection procedures also need to be made in the same manner as customs duties. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the two-year period for filing a request for correction of liquor tax on imported alcoholic beverages is applicable to the request for correction of liquor tax on imported alcoholic beverages.

In addition, since a request for correction filed after the lapse of the period for filing the request for correction is illegal and thus the tax authority does not have a duty to determine or rectify the tax base and amount of tax or to take a disposition of refusal, it shall not be deemed a disposition of refusal that is subject to appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du27183, Dec. 11, 2014).

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected the instant lawsuit seeking revocation on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s filing date of the duty return on each of the instant imported alcoholic beverages cannot be deemed a rejection disposition that is the subject of an appeal litigation, on the following grounds: (a) acknowledged the Plaintiff’s filing date of the duty return on each of the instant imported alcoholic beverages from August 22, 2008 to January 9, 2009; (b) filed a request for rectification on March 11, 201, which was later than two years after the Plaintiff’s filing date; and (c) the Defendant respondeded to the request for rectification on April 5, 201

Examining the record in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below’s measure is just, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the period for claiming correction against the import liquor tax.

3. 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.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)