Wages received in the name of a printing bonus and other similar names which are not certain to be used for the business shall constitute earned income.

It cannot be deemed that the money that the representative of the plaintiff received from the plaintiff was actually used for business purposes.

2017Nu60941 Demanding revocation of imposition of earned income tax (A)

OOO for an incorporated association

AA Head of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap82492 decided June 16, 2017

December 8, 2017

January 19, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition (including imposition of additional taxes) taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on October 16, 2015 shall be revoked in all of the collection (including imposition of additional taxes) of the withheld wage and salary income tax of KRW 2,822,622 (including additional taxes), the withheld wage and salary income tax of KRW 8,79,090 (including additional taxes) for the year 2012, the withheld wage and salary income tax of KRW 12,414,116 (including additional taxes) for the year 2013, the withheld wage and salary income tax of KRW 1,692,317 (including additional taxes) for the year 2014.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this judgment is as follows: (a) adding the judgment of this court in Paragraph (2) and, in addition to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to this court, the fact-finding and decision of the first instance court are as follows: (b) the reasoning of the first instance court is added, with the exception of adding the judgment that is not sufficient to admit the plaintiff's argument as just and sufficient. Therefore, it

2. The further determination of this Court

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The first investigation of this case did not recognize the part recognized as business related costs in the second investigation of this case as the criteria for each tax investigation, which goes against the principle of trust and good faith.

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority's acts in tax and law relations, the tax authority should first issue a public opinion list that is the object of trust to taxpayers; second, the tax authority's opinion list that is fair and trust should not be attributable to taxpayers; third, the taxpayer must trust the opinion list and act in what manner it is against the above opinion list; fourth, the tax authority's disposition against the above opinion list should result in a violation of taxpayer's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu593, Apr. 23, 1985; 2007Du7741, Oct. 29, 2009). However, since there was no evidence that the defendant acknowledged the same content as the sales price of this case in the first investigation of this case as the business cost, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's public opinion expression of opinion as the tax authority's official opinion exists. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not reasonable.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.