Plaintiff

The director of the tax office of Leecheon-jin (Court of Law, Attorney Kim Young-jin, Counsel for defendant)

July 5, 2013

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap8718 Decided December 6, 2012

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In the first instance judgment, the decision is revoked. In the first instance judgment, the defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on February 3, 2012 is revoked. In the first instance, it is confirmed that the above rejection disposition is invalid.

The reason for this decision is to correct the "reasonablely void" of Part 5 of the first instance court's decision, and the statement of the first instance court's decision, in addition to adding the following parts to Part 7, the second instance court's decision is the same.

Article 6(3)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “The amount of additional tax evasion under Article 67 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be excluded from the amount of principal tax evaded by disposal of income pursuant to Article 67 subparag. 6 of the same Act.” As such, the above provision provides that the scope of the amount of additional tax evasion under Article 6 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be restricted without specific delegation by the relevant Framework Act or the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it is only clear that the Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule of the Act provides that the amount of additional tax evasion under Article 6 subparag. 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be excluded from the amount of additional tax evasion under Article 6 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act, or that the amount of additional tax evasion under Article 84-2(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be excluded from the amount of additional tax evasion under the same Act’s provision.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Judge)