Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap9093 ( October 17, 2014)

An additional payment for wrong payment shall not be deemed to have a justifiable reason because he/she fails to perform his/her duty;

It cannot be said that there was a justifiable reason for not misunderstanding the Plaintiffs’ breach of duty, such as that there was a circumstance for the Plaintiffs to reasonably present their duties, or that it is unreasonable to expect the Plaintiffs to fulfill their duties, in view of the fact that the Plaintiffs did not know of their duties in relation to gift tax payment.

Article 47-4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Nu18447 Revocation of imposition of gift tax

1.A 2. Korea-B

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap9093 decided May 30, 2013

December 10, 2013

January 17, 2014

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition on November 10, 2010 against the Plaintiffs of the gift tax of the year 2005 is revoked by the OOO(calculated tax amount + OOOOwon + additional additional tax on negligent tax on negligent tax).

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

In the first instance court, the Plaintiffs sought revocation of the imposition of the gift tax by OOOO, and the details of the said imposition are OOOO won of the calculated tax amount of △△, OOOO won of the negligent tax on negligent tax returns for △△△△, and OOO0 won of the additional tax on additional tax for

The judgment of the court of first instance judged that the above additional payment was illegal, and the part was revoked, and the rest of the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed.

Since only the defendant appealed against this, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the above additional payment.

2. Additional dues for arrears;

(a) Facts of recognition;

The reasons for this part are as follows: (a) the first instance court’s second to six pages 7 through 1: (b) the first instance court’s second to six pages 1; and (c) the same is identical to the details of the basic facts and disposition; and (d) the same shall be cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

B. Determination

Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, an additional tax is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the individual tax law. If there is a circumstance that the taxpayer is deemed to have not been aware of such obligations, or there is a circumstance that it is unreasonable to expect that the taxpayer would not be aware of such obligations or that it is unreasonable to expect the party to perform such obligations, etc., the imposition may be exempted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4089, Apr. 15, 2005).

The plaintiffs argued to the effect that the defendant issued trust to the plaintiffs by the initial disposition without understanding the title truster's error, but later changed the title truster and again made the instant disposition. The defendant asserts to the effect that there was a circumstance in which it was impossible for the plaintiffs to expect the fulfillment of duty to pay taxes under the instant disposition due to such prior disposition.

According to the evidence and the accepted private theory as seen earlier, the original disposition and the instant disposition are separate dispositions by the title truster, and the Plaintiffs did not file a gift tax return prior to the initial disposition, and the Plaintiff HanB denied the title trust itself up to the time of filing a tax appeal and the instant lawsuit without having revealed the real title trust relationship.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable reason that it is unreasonable for the Plaintiffs to be aware of their duty as to the payment of gift tax, and there was a circumstance that the Plaintiffs could reasonably present their duty, or that it would be unreasonable to expect the Plaintiffs to fulfill their duty, and there is no other evidence to support this point. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the portion of the disposition of this case’s erroneous payment of gift tax is unlawful is groundless.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims for additional payment is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the part against the defendant, which is the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the cancelled part shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.