logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.10.20 2016누33034
소득금액변동통지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited “A No. 3” as “Evidence A No. 3,” and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion at the appellate court as stated below, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion of appeal

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the notice of the change in the amount of income accrued in the year 2006 among the disposition of this case was made after the lapse of five years from the exclusion period for imposition of the income tax accrued in the year 2006, and that it was unlawful.

B. Determination 1) In a case where a representative of a juristic person received a false tax invoice and concealed income in excess of the purchase amount on the account book, the Supreme Court of Korea held that it is difficult to view that the representative of the juristic person was conducted to evade income tax to be imposed as a representative of the juristic person because he/she anticipated that he/she would be subject to disposition of excess because he/she did not know that he/she would have accrued the concealed income from the company, and therefore, it does not constitute “where a taxpayer evades national tax by fraudulent or other unlawful means” as prescribed by Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the exclusion period for imposition of income tax on the portion belonging to the pertinent year becomes five years pursuant to Article 26-2(3) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du11382, Apr. 29, 2010). 2) The amendment of related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Framework Act on National Taxes, stipulate that national tax shall be refunded or other unlawful acts.

arrow