Seoul High Court Decision 2014Da3163

As long as the existence or legal effect of a transaction is not determined to be different, a refusal of correction is legitimate on the ground that the relevant criminal judgment was found to constitute grounds for subsequent revision.

The relevant criminal judgment is a judgment on the breach of trust under the Criminal Act, and the relevant civil judgment is related to the existence of liability for damages, so long as the existence or legal effect of transaction is not determined differently in the related judgment, it does not constitute a ground for subsequent revision on the ground that there was a relevant criminal judgment, and thus a disposition refusal

Article 42-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014Guhap2449 Revocation of revocation of a request for rectification

AAAA(State)

00. Head of tax office

April 28, 2015

May 26, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The revocation of the disposition rejecting an application for correction of the corporate tax for the business year 201 and the value-added tax for the second and second years from 2007 to 2010 filed by the former Defendant on May 0, 201 by the Plaintiff on May 00, 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At a time of 00.0.00.0.0.00.00.0.0.00.00.00.0.00.0.0.00.00.0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0.00.0.00.00.0.0.00.0.0.0.00.00.0.0.00.0.0.00.0.0.00.0.0.00.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.00.0..00.0.0.00.00.. 10.0.00. 10.00. 20. 207. 207. 20. 30. 3. 3. 3. 3 1. 3 1. . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E. On October 0, 2012, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated his/her occupational duties and provided the Plaintiff with property benefits equivalent to the difference between the amount of the Plaintiff supplied to transaction parties, including HanBB, and the amount of property damage equivalent to the same amount, HAAA was indicted for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Articles 2011 and 200) and the two years sentenced to imprisonment on October 0, 2012, but the appellate court was acquitted on the part of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “related criminal judgment”) on October 0, 2013 on the ground that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to recognize the difference between the Plaintiff and the 00th Civil Judgment on the grounds that it violated its duties and the 0th Civil Judgment on October 0, 2014 (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do000).

1) Since 2004, when the Plaintiff was aware of the existence and role of the Plaintiff’s employees in the bidding to Korea-BB, the Plaintiff informed that the purchasing team leader of Korea-B BB would fall in a competitive business with a decrease in sales volume, and recommended NA to buy a lower price through a separate agency prior to the end of the bidding. At that time, the Plaintiff also discussed the change in the way of directly supplying the products to Korea-BB in order to raise the price response capacity and to raise the sales cost that is difficult for the directors of French major shareholders to recognize. In light of the fact that most of the Plaintiff’s employees were aware of the existence and role of CC(CC) and so forth, it cannot be deemed that it was established to acquire the intermediate sales price by participating in the middle of the trading process. The Plaintiff’s reasonable profit to the Plaintiff (CC) is not deemed to have been aware of the Plaintiff’s acquisition at the time of this change in the trading situation.

3) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff appears to have reduced the sale price at the request of Korea-BB after 201, which had been engaged in direct trade with Korea-BB, and that the sale price at the request of Korea-BB was higher than the previous 7% compared to the sale price at the ELF for the same product, it seems that the Plaintiff was higher or adjacent to the sales price at the time of direct supply to the transaction parties, such as the BB, who had not been able to remarkably lower the sale price at the time of the Plaintiff’s participation in the CC’s bidding again through Korea-B (CC) and had not been 206.

4) The sales and profits have rapidly increased since the Plaintiff entered into a transaction with the CCB via the CC (State). The Plaintiff’s head office was determined that the Plaintiff did not incur any particular damage to the Plaintiff in the transaction throughCC (State). A significant portion of the profits arising from the price difference in the CC (State) were used as business expenses for BB, etc.

H. The Plaintiff asserted that “A related criminal judgment, etc. determined that the Plaintiff did not supplyCC (CC) products unfairly lower than the market price, which constitutes grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction.” In submitting the relevant criminal judgment, etc. to the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction of the corporate tax, etc. of this case. However, the relevant criminal judgment on October 0, 2014 constituted the grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction.

(i) On October 0, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 0, 2014, when the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal. However, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 0, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers), the whole purport of the pleading

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The civil judgment related to the relevant criminal judgment falls under the "judgment" under Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, the disposition of this case which rejected the subsequent correction even though the grounds for subsequent correction occurred is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

1) According to Article 45-2(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a person who received the determination of the tax base and amount of national tax becomes final and conclusive as different by the judgment (including reconciliation or other acts having the same effect as the judgment) on the lawsuit concerning the transaction or act, etc. which served as the basis of calculation of the tax base and amount of tax, he/she may file a claim for correction within 2 months from the date he/she becomes aware of the occurrence of the cause. Here, "when the transaction or act, etc. becomes final and conclusive as different by the judgment on the lawsuit regarding the transaction or act, etc. which served as the basis of calculation of the tax base and amount of tax after the initial decision was made, the first decision cannot be maintained properly by the judgment on the transaction or act, etc. which became the basis of calculation of the tax base and amount of tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du2379, Jul. 28, 201).

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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