Plaintiff

Gunpo-Mayor

April 3, 2013

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part seeking revocation of each imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 6,191,00 and special rural development tax of KRW 619,100 as of January 14, 201 and special rural development tax of KRW 619,10 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 6,206,200 against the Plaintiff on February 8, 201 and special rural development tax of KRW 620,610 (as seen below, 1) is revoked as follows: (i) imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 6,160,00 and special rural development tax of KRW 616,00 on January 14, 201, which the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on January 14, 201; and (ii) revocation of imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 46,200 and special rural development tax of KRW 4,610 on February 8, 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 14, 2010, the Plaintiff independently succeeded to the Mapo-si ( Address omitted) owned by the deceased Nonparty as the deceased Nonparty’s father-child died (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On January 14, 201, the Plaintiff reported acquisition tax of 6,191,40 won (this tax of 6,160,000 won + 31,410 won for unfaithful payment) and special rural development tax of 619,140 won (this tax of 616,00 won + 3,140 won for unfaithful payment) to the Defendant following the inheritance of the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant report act”).

C. After that, the Defendant did not pay the above acquisition tax, etc. reported by the Plaintiff, the Defendant passed a decision on collection of acquisition tax of KRW 6,206,200 (this tax of KRW 6,160,000 + KRW 46,200 for unfaithful payment) and KRW 620,610 for special rural development tax (this tax of KRW 616,00 + KRW 4,610 for unfaithful payment + KRW 4,610 for unfaithful payment), and notified the Plaintiff to pay it on February 8, 2011.

D. On April 28, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do seeking revocation of the payment notice of acquisition tax, etc. as of February 8, 2011, but the said objection was dismissed on July 27, 2011, and thereafter, the said claim was filed with the Tax Tribunal on October 27, 201, but the said claim was also dismissed on March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 29, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 6 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, as an overseas Korean, has the same legal qualification as the filing of a resident registration report under the Resident Registration Act by reporting his/her domestic place of residence under the Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans at the time the apartment of this case was acquired by inheritance. Thus, the acquisition of the apartment of this case in this case constitutes one house for one household due to inheritance under Article 110 subparagraph 3 (a) of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and must be exempted from taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Whether the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation of each principal imposition disposition of acquisition tax and special rural development tax is legitimate

1) On its own initiative, Article 72(1) of the former Local Tax Act provides that "any person whose rights or interests have been infringed by either unlawful or unreasonable disposition or by failing to receive necessary disposition, as a disposition under this Act (in the case of a return and payment or a revised return and payment, it shall be deemed that a disposition was made at the time of such return and payment)" includes "returns which are not accompanied by payment" in the main part of the above provision includes "returns which are not accompanied by payment." The above method of tax payment is merely a specific determination of tax liability by filing a return on the tax base and amount of tax, and its payment is merely a specific performance of tax liability determined by filing a return (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du5955 delivered on February 9, 201). It is a final disposition for collection of tax that a person liable for tax payment notifies that the person liable for tax payment should pay the same amount of tax as the reported matters without correction as the details of tax return by failing to pay the tax base and amount of tax (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du3838, 20003, Apr. 28, 20003).

In addition, Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "a revocation lawsuit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date the person becomes aware of the disposition, etc.: Provided, That where a request for administrative appeal can be made, or where an administrative agency falsely notifies that a request for administrative appeal may be made, the period from the date when the original written judgment is served." Article 27(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that "an administrative appeal shall be filed within 90 days from the date when the person becomes aware of the disposition." Articles 72 through 74 of the former Local Tax Act provides that "an objection or a request for examination or a request for judgment against the disposition of imposing local taxes may be filed, and if an objection is to be filed after filing a request for examination or a request for judgment after filing an objection, it shall be filed within 90 days from the date when the decision on the objection is notified, and where an administrative agency fails to file a request for administrative appeal within 90 days from the date when the decision on the disposition becomes known, the period of revocation of the original disposition shall not exceed 190 days after filing an administrative appeal.

2) On January 14, 201, the Plaintiff completed the instant reporting act on the acquisition tax and special rural development tax due to the inheritance of the instant apartment on January 14, 201, and the Plaintiff did not pay the said acquisition tax and special rural development tax. The Defendant issued a notice of payment on February 8, 201 of the same year to the principal tax on the acquisition tax and special rural development tax of the same amount as the reported details without any correction on the matters reported by the Plaintiff on February 8, 201, as seen earlier. As such, each disposition imposing the principal tax on the acquisition tax and special rural development tax following the inheritance of the instant apartment (hereinafter “each disposition imposing the principal tax of this case”) shall be deemed to have been disposition on January 14, 2011, on which the Plaintiff reported it (However, as seen earlier, since the Defendant revised the tax amount on February 8, 201 of the same year, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant reported it as the instant act.)

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff filed an objection and a request for trial with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do and the Tax Tribunal on April 28, 201 and October 27, 201, which deemed that each of the instant principal tax imposition dispositions was the date of the relevant disposition. As such, the Plaintiff filed an objection and a request for trial against each of the instant principal tax imposition dispositions. As such, all of the objection and a request for trial have been filed with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do and the Tax Tribunal on April 28, 201 and the period for filing the objection has expired (it shall not be deemed that there was a different decision of the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do to dismiss the objection, and that the said decision was made by the Tax Tribunal on March 30, 2012). The portion of the instant lawsuit filed only on March 30, 2012, which sought revocation of each of the principal tax imposition dispositions, and as such, the instant lawsuit was unlawful since the period for filing the lawsuit has lapsed by 90 days under the main sentence of Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

(d) Whether each disposition imposing additional taxes on acquisition tax and special rural development tax is legitimate;

1) Additional tax under the Local Tax Act is a kind of administrative sanction imposed on a taxpayer who violates an obligation under the tax law without justifiable reason in order to facilitate the exercise of taxation right and the realization of tax claims. Thus, for the convenience of collection procedure, it is merely a tax item of national tax under the relevant tax law, which is imposed along with the principal tax amount calculated under the relevant tax law. Since the nature of the national tax established under the tax law differs in essence from that of the principal tax, the imposition of additional tax is separate from that of the principal tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2356, Sept. 30, 2005).

2) On February 8, 2011, the Plaintiff did not voluntarily pay the acquisition tax and special rural development tax after having reported the instant case. As seen earlier, the Defendant issued a notice of payment of additional tax on each additional tax on the principal tax and special rural development tax (hereinafter “each additional tax of this case”) to the Plaintiff on February 8, 2011. Therefore, unlike each of the instant principal tax imposed on January 14, 201, which was made on January 14, 201, the date of the instant report, the disposition imposing additional tax of this case was deemed to have been issued on February 8, 201, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Governor of Gyeonggi-do on April 28, 2011, which was within 90 days from the date of the instant report, is also deemed to have complied with the period of request for revocation of each of the said additional imposition dispositions, and therefore, it is evident that the filing of the objection and the instant lawsuit filed within the period of filing the lawsuit.

However, the imposition of additional tax is separate from the imposition of principal tax, and if there is no ground for revocation of the imposition of principal tax, it is legitimate to impose additional tax unless there is any ground for revocation of the imposition of principal tax, and as seen earlier, the imposition of principal tax becomes final and conclusive, and the requirements for imposition of additional tax are met since the Plaintiff failed to pay each principal tax within the payment period, and the above imposition of additional tax cannot be seen as having any ground for illegality unique to each of the above imposition of additional tax. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the part seeking the revocation of each principal tax imposition disposition of this case is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed. The plaintiff's remaining claims seeking the revocation of each of the disposition imposing additional tax of this case are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment-Related Acts and subordinate statutes omitted]

Judges Ansan-gu (Presiding Judge)