Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-50522 ( October 18, 2018)

Whether 10 years have passed since the exclusion period for imposition due to a disposition made for recognition

Unless there are special circumstances to deem that it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment of the criminal judgment in the administrative litigation as long as the related criminal judgment has already become final and conclusive, the fact against it shall not be recognized.

The exclusion period for national tax assessment under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2018Nu5208 Invalidity of the imposition of global income tax

AA

a) the Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Guhap50522 decided May 18, 2018

December 11, 2018

on 15, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On January 5, 2016, the defendant confirmed that the imposition of global income tax of KRW 484,710,530 (including additional tax) against the plaintiff on January 5, 2008 is invalid.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following to the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420

○ In Part 5 of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added to the seventh instance judgment:

In addition, as long as the relevant criminal judgment has already become final and conclusive, it cannot be recognized that it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the administrative litigation unless there are special circumstances to deem it difficult to adopt a factual judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2042, May 13, 2004).

○ Section 7 of the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s decision, with the following addition:

[On the other hand, it is insufficient to say that a disposition of taxation is unlawful in order to be null and void as a matter of course. It is objectively obvious that the defect is in violation of an important statute, and it is necessary to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law that serves as the basis of the disposition, and to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself at the same time. From this point of view, it is important and obvious that a disposition of taxation is imposed on a person who does not have any legal relations or factual relations that are subject to taxation, but if it is possible to clearly examine the factual relations with respect to any legal relations or factual relations that are not subject to taxation, it cannot be said that it is apparent from appearance even if the defect is serious, and it cannot be said that the defect is null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu12634, Jun. 26, 1998; Supreme Court Decision 2008Du8184, Jul. 28, 2008). 208).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.