logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014. 10. 31. 선고 2014누2067 판결
의무해태를 탓할 수 없는 정당한 사유가 있는 경우에는 가산세를 과할 수 없음[국패]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Incheon District Court 2012Gudan468 (No. 21, 2014)

Title

If there is a justifiable reason not to prove the failure to perform the duty, the penalty shall not be imposed.

Summary

If it is unreasonable for a taxpayer to be unaware of his/her duty to pay taxes to believe that it is not unreasonable for him/her to do so, an additional tax shall not be imposed if there are justifiable grounds that make it difficult for him/her to properly present his/her duty or to expect the party to fulfill his/her duty to pay taxes, etc.

Cases

2014Nu2067 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff, Appellant

KimA

Defendant, appellant and appellant

BB Director of the Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Gudan468 Decided January 21, 2014

Conclusion of Pleadings

October 10, 2014

Imposition of Judgment

October 31, 2014

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

In February 17, 2011, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the capital gains tax of KRW OOO(including additional tax OOOO) for the Plaintiff on February 17, 2002 (the first instance court dismissed the request for cancellation of the principal tax excluding the additional tax, but was excluded from the scope of the trial due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an appeal).

2. Purport of appeal

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

Reasons

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the first to third-party 1, from among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. As such, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that: (a) in the judgment of legality of taxation of this case, the Plaintiff did not impose capital gains tax for the following reasons: (b) after checking the outcome of the lawsuit on unjust enrichment case, the Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap92796, which was not a party to the lawsuit; (b) after determining the tax base and tax amount of capital gains tax; and (c) after a considerable period of time (nine years) has elapsed from the time of reporting the capital gains tax on the land of this case, the disposition of this case is more than the capital gains tax; and (d) in light of the fact that additional tax is more than the capital

Under the tax law, in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, as prescribed by the individual tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, the taxpayer’s intention and negligence are not considered as administrative sanctions. On the other hand, such sanctions cannot be imposed in cases where justifiable grounds exist, such as where the taxpayer is deemed to have failed to know his/her duty, and it is unreasonable to expect the party to fulfill his/her duty, or where it is unreasonable to expect the party to fulfill his/her duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10181, Nov. 14, 1995).

In the instant case, even if the tax authority could not properly determine the factual relations due to lack of objective data, and thus delayed the imposition disposition of capital gains tax, the Plaintiff as a direct party to the instant transaction could have known the factual relations, which are the premise of the imposition disposition of capital gains tax of this case, at the time of conclusion of the sales contract, and thus, he could report the capital gains tax corresponding to the real relation within the payment period of capital gains tax after the conclusion of the sales contract. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s failure to pay capital gains tax falls under

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow