Whether the object of request for correction is legitimate or not

Since a request for correction filed after the lapse of the period for filing a request for correction is illegal and thus the tax authority does not have a duty to decide or rectify the tax base and amount of tax or to take a disposition of refusal, it shall not be deemed a disposition of refusal that is subject to appeal even

The contents of the judgment are the same as the attachment.

Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015Guhap6777 Disposition rejecting a claim for rectification of value-added tax

○○○○ Incorporated Company

Head of △ District Office

November 12, 2015

December 17, 2015

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s rejection of a claim for correction notified to the Plaintiff on July 23, 2014 (the aggregate value-added tax of KRW 14,887,00 shall be revoked from February 2008 to January 2009).

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 건설업, 부동산임대업 등을 영위하는 주식회사로, 2008년 제2기부터 2009년 제2기까지 학교법인 ◊◊◊◊◊◊대학(이하 '소외 대학'이라 한다)에 관리비 명목으로 2008년 제2기 41,000,000원, 2009년 제1기 124,000,000원, 2009년 제2기 117,000,000원 합계 282,000,000원(공급가액)의 세금계산서를 발행하여 부가가치세를 신고하였다.

B. On April 21, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a civil suit against the non-party university (Seoul Southern District Court 2009Mo2009, the ▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△), and on April 21, 2010, the Plaintiff made a decision in lieu of the conciliation that the non-party university would pay management expenses of KRW 280,000 (including value-added tax) to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 245,000,000 at the time of filing the first final tax return for value-added tax in 2010 (hereinafter “instant compulsory conciliation decision”).

C. On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for rectification of value-added tax (hereinafter “instant request for rectification”) with the Defendant on the ground that the management expenses for the second period from 2008 to 2009 were twice reported due to the instant decision on compulsory adjustment, but the Defendant rejected the correction on July 23, 2014 on the ground that the period for filing a request for rectification expired.

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection on October 24, 2014, but was dismissed. On November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition for grievance with the National Tax Service. On December 19, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision to rectify only the value-added tax for the second period of 2009, where the period of exclusion has not elapsed since the date of review of the grievance after deliberation by the Taxpayer Protection Commission. As a result, the Defendant rendered a decision to review the details of the grievance after deliberation by the Taxpayer Protection Commission.

E. On February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal to the effect that the part of the value-added tax for the second period of 2008 and the first period of 2009 were also corrected, but was dismissed on March 19, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

Inasmuch as the statutory due date of return of the value-added tax for the second period and the first period in 2008 was January 25, 2009 and July 25, 2009, respectively, the statutory due date of return of the value-added tax for the second period and the second period in 2009 may be filed by January 25, 2012 and July 25, 2012, within three years after the statutory due date of return expires pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Plaintiff also filed a request for rectification within the said period. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s request for rectification was unlawful even if the period of filing a request for rectification was already expired under Article 45-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

B. Determination

1) According to Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, a person who has filed a return of tax base within the statutory due date of return may request the head of the competent district tax office to determine or correct the tax base and amount of tax recorded in the return of tax base (where a determination or correction is made pursuant to the provisions of each tax-related Act, referring to the tax base and amount of tax after such determination or correction is made) in excess of the tax base and amount of tax to be reported under the tax-related Acts (where the determination or correction is made pursuant to the provisions of each tax-related Act, referring to the tax base and amount of tax after the determination or correction is made) within three years after the statutory due date of return elapses (where a determination or correction is made pursuant to

In addition, according to Article 2 (2) (1) of the same Act, a person who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return, or who has received a determination of the tax base and amount of national taxes, may request the determination or correction within two months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the occurrence of the cause, regardless of the period stipulated in paragraph (1), when the transaction, act, etc., which is the basis of calculating the tax base and amount of tax, becomes final and conclusive as different by a final judgment (including reconciliation and other acts having the same effect as the judgment) in the first return, determination or correction, etc. (Article

In addition, according to Article 3(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010), the taxable period for value-added tax on a business operator shall be from January 1 to June 30 in the case of the first period, from July 1 in the case of the second period to December 31 in the case of the second period, and from July 1 to December 31 in the case of the second period, the business operator shall report to the head of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business within 25 days (50 days in the case of a foreign corporation) after the end of the taxable period.

On the other hand, a request for correction filed after the lapse of the period for filing a request for correction is illegal and thus the tax authority does not have a duty to either determine or rectify the tax base and amount of tax or to take a disposition of refusal. Thus, even if the tax authority refuses correction, it shall not be deemed a disposition of refusal that is subject to appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du44830, Mar.

2) In light of the Plaintiff’s request for correction under Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, when deeming the Plaintiff’s request for correction to be an ordinary request for correction under Article 45-2(1) of the same Act, the said request for correction was filed on June 17, 2014, it is obvious that three years have passed since the expiry of January 25, 2009 and July 25, 2009, which is the statutory due date of return of the value-added tax for the second year value-added tax in 2008, which is the statutory due date of return of the value-added tax for the first time in 209. Moreover, even if the instant request for correction is deemed to be a request for correction under Article 45-2(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, it cannot be deemed that the instant request for correction was lawful since the decision of compulsory adjustment was finalized around April 21, 2010, the Plaintiff filed the instant request on June 17, 2019.

Ultimately, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the notification that the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for rectification on July 23, 2014 cannot be deemed a rejection disposition subject to appeal litigation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

section 3.