Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap16380 ( October 10, 2007)

National High Court Decision 2005No1688 (Ob. 21, 2006)

Where the original disposition is in progress, the corrective disposition can modify the purport of the claim without the procedure of the previous trial.

If there is a decision of correction to change the original disposition on the same object of taxation while legal action for revocation is pending, if the original lawsuit is filed within the legitimate period of lawsuit, it is unnecessary to take a separate procedure for trial as to the decision of correction without going through a separate procedure for trial.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the claim for a change in exchange at the trial, including the claim for a change in exchange, the claim was changed in exchange for the claim seeking the cancellation of the above change in order to correct the increase to the head of Gangnam Tax Office.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. Each disposition of imposition against the plaintiff by the defendant Gangnam-gu Tax Office Nos. 1 through 3 of the attached Table Nos. 64, 68 through 116, and 122 through 132 of the attached Table Nos. 6 through 64, 68 through 116, each disposition of imposition against the plaintiff shall be revoked against the plaintiff.

B. Defendant Gangnam-gu director of the tax office

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant Gangnam Tax Office shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Gangnam Tax Office corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part concerning the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

[Attachment]

A. Change on February 2, 2006 to " February 2, 2006," No. 10 of the judgment of the first instance court No. 3, 2002

(b) from Chapter 3 to Chapter 4:

E. After conducting a tax investigation on 000 hotel hotel (hereinafter referred to as "○○ hotel") with the representative director, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile stated that the 000 hotel reported corporate tax in 203 and omitted from the remaining sales 1,016,123,791 won, excluding the cash sales on credit card and the cash sales on the issuance of tax invoices, and included the amount omitted sales in corporate income, and then included the amount of the above sales in the amount of 1,016,123,791 won in the amount of total income for 30 years and 40 years and 97 years and 97 years and 403 years and 97 years and 97 years of total income tax for the Plaintiff as bonus to the representative director, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile (hereinafter referred to as “○○ hotel”). The Defendant Gangnam District Tax Office finally included the amount of the above global income tax for 203 years and 30 years of total income tax for 406 years and 97 years of rural development tax.

(c)in addition to the evidence of No. 34 to 45 of the last 3rd e.g. ‘No. 24'.

(d) from the fifth to the fourth:

D. Determination on the defense prior to the merits of the Defendant Gangnam-gu Tax Office

In light of the above-mentioned facts, the head of Gangnam District Tax Office stated that the plaintiff sought revocation of the above-mentioned disposition on August 10, 207, 2000 if he/she received the notice of revised tax assessment for 203 years, and that the plaintiff sought revocation of the above disposition on Nov. 17, 2008 without going through legitimate procedures for revised tax assessment for 20 years. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of revised tax assessment for 203 years from the plaintiff's lawsuit on the ground that it is improper for 200 years from the initial determination of revised tax assessment for 30 years from the initial determination of revised tax assessment for 40 years from the date of revised tax assessment for 20 years from the date of revised tax assessment for 20 years from the date of revised tax assessment for 30 years from the date of revised tax assessment for 20 years from the initial determination of revised tax assessment for 40 years from the date of revised tax assessment for 20 years from the date of revised tax assessment for 20 years from the above.

(e) by striking 8, 4, 8,00.

(f) Change on June 1, 199 to " June 1, 1996," No. 11, 7, 1999.

G. As to the fact that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the expenditure was made of Nos. 4, 5, and 5 on No. 12, the statement of No. 4, 5, and 9 alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(h) revise 12 pages 8 to 1, 2, and 3 'A evidence 6-1, 2-2';

I. Since there are only 'the 12th page 10' and 'the 12th page 10', it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's above assertion, and it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion as 'the 6th page 6-1 and 3.'

(j) Since it is difficult to recognize the validity of the 13th, 10, 11th, 'the rationality is difficult,' it is not indicated in the 5th, 'the above 13th, 'the above 'the receipt book which became the basis for estimation', so it is difficult to clearly understand what year the contents recorded therein are about the year. The response ratio of the Seoul Regional Tax Office to the mail inquiry on wedding or annual fee was 25%. In the case of 1st, 2002, the average amount of the revenue calculated by averaging 17 out of the presumed 282, 202, 17 out of the estimated 2nd, 531 cases, 531 cases, 40 cases among the 531st, 50 cases, 7.5% of the total number of cases, and the average amount of revenue recorded in the reply, it is difficult to recognize that the above correction method and validity are reasonable.'

(k)Revisions to Parts 13, 12 to 19, as follows:

As seen above, the part of the global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff for 202 (Attached Table 4) and 203 of global income tax for 30 years and 203, with the exception of the illegal part of the above disposition, the legitimate tax amount for global income tax for 2002 shall be calculated ① 23,186,170 won (including 5,270,590 won) for the Plaintiff on December 17, 205; 207, 306, 30, 270, 270, 270, 306, 270, 270, 306, 270, 306, 207, 306, 207, 306, 306, 207, 30, 207, 306, 97, 206, 306, 207, 97, 396, etc.

(l) from the 14th to the 4th:

“(5) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s other allegations

(A) The plaintiff asserts that the above disposition is null and void since it was not served with the notice of correction of the increase in global income tax in 2003. Thus, in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statement Nos. 34-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 34-2, the plaintiff's notice of correction of global income tax in 2003 was sent to the plaintiff by registered mail on August 8, 2007, and the plaintiff's receipt was made on August 10, 2007. The statement No. 11-2 of the evidence No. 11-2 of the above recognition alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition and there is no counter-proof. Thus, the above notice to the plaintiff was delivered lawfully to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 10 (2) and (4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted.

(B) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of the Plaintiff’s provisional payment on the account book of 003 when the head of Gangnam District Tax Office issued a disposition of increasing global income tax in 2003 was unlawful since the Plaintiff’s provisional payment on the account book of 003, all of which were written as the Plaintiff’s provisional payment on the ground that the Plaintiff’s provisional payment on the account book was unlawful. Accordingly, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings on the account of the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 35 and 45, the Plaintiff’s government director’s tax office’s investigation on the account of the Plaintiff’s monthly reservation on the account of 00 hotel’s monthly reservation status table, main event table, skin list, event progress table, etc., and on the basis of the Plaintiff’s statement, 000, 000, 000 won were omitted on the account book of 203, 300,0000, 203, 300,000.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for revocation of each disposition of imposition as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 11, 41 through 43, 73 through 76, 94, 122 through 132 is unlawful among the lawsuits against the defendant Dobong Tax Office. Thus, all of them are dismissed. The part of the decision of the court below against the defendant 5,27,273 (including a special rural development tax amount of KRW 5,270,590) is more than 617,267,273 (including a special rural development tax of KRW 5,270,590) among the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 102,209,567 (including a special rural development tax of KRW 17,854) as of December 17, 2004 as to the defendant 5,207, and the part of the decision of the court below against the defendant 1 and the decision of the court below as to the remaining part of the court below is dismissed.