(a) Validity of a revised return on the tax base of value-added tax for which the tax base or amount of tax initially filed is reduced or increased;

(b) Legal nature of the disposition on which a notice of tax payment is served by adding up the additional paid amount due to a failure to pay the tax base and tax amount;

C. Whether the propriety of a disposition rejecting correction pursuant to the original declaration or a revised declaration can be contested in the procedure for collecting value-added tax or imposing and collecting the additional tax pursuant to the original declaration (negative)

A. In accordance with Article 45(1)1 and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a person who has filed a tax base return of value-added tax within the statutory due date of return may file a revised tax base return within six months after the statutory due date of return expires in cases where there are omissions or errors in the stated matters. In such cases, where there are any matters to reduce the tax base or the tax amount filed originally, or increase the tax amount to be refunded, the Government shall investigate them and notify the person who filed the return of the result thereof, and shall correct the matters to be corrected simultaneously. However, regardless of the procedure of the aforementioned revised tax disposition, the original return of value-added tax base and the tax amount paid, and the revised return thereof, regardless of the procedure of such revised tax disposition, are the same as the original return of value-added tax base and the tax amount

B. If a business operator reported the tax base of value-added tax and the amount of tax payable, but the tax authority imposed a tax payment notice by adding the amount of additional tax for the failure to pay the amount of tax payable, it is a combined disposition of collection ordering the payment of the amount of value-added tax determined by a business operator’s report and imposing

C. The value-added tax is an obligation to pay the amount of value-added tax once the return becomes final and conclusive and is thus payable at the time of the return, so it does not lead to a change in the obligation to pay the tax unless the return is corrected later, and even if a domestic report was wrong and it is illegal to refuse correction due to a revised return, it cannot be contested the legitimacy of the disposition of refusal of correction and the procedure of collecting the value-added tax according to the initial return or the procedure of collecting the additional tax without dispute over the disposition of refusal of correction.

(a)(b)Article 22(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 10-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 19(a) of the Value-Added Tax Act. Article 45(1)1 and (2)(b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Article 47(1) of the same Act, Article 22(3)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act;

C. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu571 delivered on January 20, 1987 (Gong1987,372) 87Nu479 delivered on November 8, 198 (Gong1988,1540) 85Nu83 delivered on January 31, 1989 (Gong1989,353)

Masan Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., the same general law firm, Attorneys Kim Hong-Hun et al.

Head of Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu4661 delivered on November 14, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first and third grounds for appeal

1. The amount of value-added tax is fixed when the tax base and the amount of tax to be paid are returned to the Government, and the entrepreneur is obligated to pay the amount of tax to the Government for the relevant taxable period along with the above declaration (Article 22(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 10-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act), and Article 10/100 of the amount of tax not paid where the entrepreneur violates his obligation to pay is entitled to impose and collect as additional tax (Article 47(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

However, under Article 45(1)1 and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a person who has filed a tax base return of value-added tax within the statutory due date of return may file the revised tax base return within six months after the statutory due date of return expires in cases where there are omissions or errors in the stated matters. In such cases, where there are any matters to reduce the tax base or the tax amount to be filed, or increase the tax amount to be refunded, the Government shall investigate them and notify the reporter of the result thereof, and at the same time correct the matters to be corrected. However, regardless of the procedure of the aforementioned revised tax disposition, the tax liability becomes final and conclusive upon the initial return of the value-added tax base and the tax amount to be paid, and the tax liability due to the initial return of the value-added tax base and the tax amount to be paid, cannot be deemed

2. According to the facts established by the court below, on May 3, 1990, the plaintiff sold real estate, etc. recorded in the attached list of the court below on July 2, 1990 to the non-party Yang Ho-do Tourist Hotel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") and did not pay the tax base and amount of the value-added tax for the first period of July 2, 1990, but the defendant did not pay the tax amount, and the defendant issued a tax payment notice on July 19 of the same year, and the plaintiff issued a revised return on August 25 of the same year and issued a revised return on February 5, 1991, and the defendant rejected the correction of the tax base and amount of value-added tax for the reason that the above revised return was unfair. If the circumstance or content of the disposition of this case made by the defendant, the judgment of the court below that the disposition of this case is combined with the collection order and the imposition and collection disposition of the additional tax.

3. As such, in a case where the plaintiff files a final return on the tax base of value-added tax and the amount of tax payable in accordance with lawful procedures, the plaintiff shall pay the amount of tax payable for the relevant taxable period along with the return (Article 19(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act). The defendant may impose penalty tax on the plaintiff who does not pay it. This is not related to whether the plaintiff's sale of the above real estate is subject to value-added tax, and whether the defendant's refusal of correction following the plaintiff's revised return was justifiable or not. Thus, the court below's determination that the defendant's disposition of this case was legitimate without making a decision on the legitimacy of this part is just, and the court below's argument that the original return and the revised return

4. In addition, Article 44 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides that the government may correct the tax base of value-added tax and the amount of payable tax by investigation, the amount of value-added tax shall be determined by the act of the head of the competent tax office, and the tax return is merely an act of providing the tax authority with the data on the determination of payable tax amount, and the act of declaration is merely an act of notifying the tax authority of the fact that it can be subject to taxation. However, as determined in paragraph 1 of the above Article, it cannot be interpreted as an act of notifying the tax

On the second ground for appeal

As such, value-added tax is an obligation to pay the amount of value-added tax once the return becomes final and conclusive and the amount of the tax is to be paid at the time of the return, so it does not result in a change in the liability for the payment unless the return is corrected later, and even if it is erroneous in family affairs and it is illegal to refuse correction following a revised return, it cannot be asserted whether the initial return is proper or the initial return is made in the procedure of collecting value-added tax or collecting the additional tax, and the propriety of the disposition of refusal of correction following the revised return cannot be asserted. Thus, in this case, the court below's failure to determine whether the transfer of real estate by the plaintiff constitutes the supply of goods subject to value-added tax, and whether it is subject

There is no reason for this issue.

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.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)