Whether an act of submitting a report on the performance of withholding tax pursuant to the notice of change in income amount is subject to request for rectification.

The time of attribution of the revenue amount of this case is not the year 2003 when the notice of the change in income amount was given, but the business year when the representative director of the plaintiff provided labor and omitted the return of the revenue amount of this case. Thus, it is not subject to the right of claim for correction under Article 45-2(4) of the Framework

Request for correction, etc. under Article 45-2 of the Framework Act

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against the claim for correction of KRW 1,045,425,240 against the plaintiff on February 27, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Object of the political party deliberation;

On May 26, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on February 27, 2006 by designating the Defendant as the head of ○○ District Tax Office, seeking the revocation of the refusal of the application for correction of wage and salary income tax on February 27, 2006 against the Plaintiff. The court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on January 11, 2007, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is unlawful. The Plaintiff filed a motion for correction with the court of first instance on the purport that the Defendant would seek a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the wage and salary income tax withheld without any legal cause. The court of first instance permitted this on August 10, 207. The Plaintiff filed a request on October 19, 2007 with the head of ○○ Tax Office for revocation of the application for revocation of the application for correction of wage and salary income tax on the same basis as the lawsuit filed with the court of first instance on October 19, 2007.

A lawsuit against the previous defendant is considered to have been withdrawn (Article 14(5) of the Administrative Litigation Act). Since a lawsuit against the new defendant is considered to have been brought at the time of the first lawsuit (Article 14(4) of the Administrative Litigation Act). Thus, even if the head of ○○ Tax Office, who was the previous defendant due to the rectification of the defendant two times or more, became the defendant again, the court of the trial shall determine the claim by deeming the head of ○○ Tax Office to be the new defendant according to the decision on

2. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs a new real estate sales business since October 25, 200.

B. The director of the regional tax office of ○○ may detect the omission of the Plaintiff’s return of KRW 3,059,275,019 (hereinafter “the instant revenue amount”) during the business year 2002, and dispose of the Plaintiff’s bonus to Kim○, a representative director of the Plaintiff, and notify the Plaintiff of the change of income amount on October 8, 2003. Accordingly, on November 7, 2003, the Plaintiff withheld and paid KRW 1,045,425,240 for the year 202 for Kim○.

C. On July 1, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a national tax appeal seeking the revocation of the above bonus disposition by asserting that it was improper to dispose of the revenue amount of this case as bonus to its representative, even though it was not actually leaked out of the company, upon the filing of an objection on January 6, 2004. However, on June 24, 2005, the Plaintiff was dismissed by the National Tax Tribunal.

D. Meanwhile, on November 4, 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that all of the instant revenue amount was disbursed as construction expenses, etc. and that it was not out of the company to the representative director, and filed a request for correction of reduction of tax base and tax amount to be changed by excluding the instant revenue amount from the total salary.

On February 27, 2006, the defendant sent a reply to the plaintiff on February 27, 2006 that the plaintiff's claim for rectification of duty amount is not subject to correction claim under Article 45-2 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter "the reply of this case").

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

Before Article 45-2(4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes was newly established, “act of submitting a tax base return according to the notice of change in income amount” was not a provision that can be seen as “act of submitting a tax base return within the statutory due date of return.” Thus, even if the Plaintiff submitted a tax base return based on the notice of change in income amount, it is not recognized as having the right to request for correction because it is difficult to view it as a final return of tax base or tax amount, and accordingly, the reply

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The right to file a correction claim recognized under Article 45-2 (4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes applies to the portion of taxable year 2003 pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Addenda of the same Act. In other words, where the tax authority deemed the amount of taxable income out of the company to be reverted to an officer or employee and disposed of as a bonus, Article 49 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act stipulates that the time when the income accrued from the company out of the company is provided with labor during the pertinent business year. However, where the income is subject to withholding, Article 192 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act stipulates that the time when the income accrues shall be deemed to be the date when the corporation receives the notice of change in the amount of income (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4133, Dec. 10, 191).

Therefore, the time of attribution of the instant revenue amount is not the year 2003 when the notice of change in income amount was given, but the Plaintiff’s representative director, Kim ○○, providing labor and omitted the instant revenue amount in 2002, and thus, it is not subject to the right to claim rectification under Article 45-2(4) of the Framework Act

(2) Unless otherwise expressly provided for in the Framework Act on National Taxes or individual tax-related Acts, a right to claim for correction pursuant to cooking cannot be acknowledged, and even if the customs office rejected a request for correction of a taxpayer who did not have the basis for tax-related Acts, it cannot be deemed a rejection disposition that is the object of appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7993, May 11, 2006). The reply in this case is filed against a request for correction by a person who did not have the right to claim for correction, and it does not constitute a rejection disposition that is the object of appeal litigation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

(1) Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7008, Dec. 30, 2003)

Ο 제45조의2 (경정 등의 청구)

(1) In any of the following cases, a person who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return may request the head of the competent tax office to determine or correct the tax base and amount of national tax reported for the initial return and revised return (referring to the tax base and amount of tax after the determination or correction is made, where such determination or correction is made pursuant to the provisions of each tax-related Act) within two years after

1. Where the tax base and tax amount entered in the tax base return (referred to the tax base and tax amount after such decision or correction is made, if such decision or correction is made under the provisions of each tax-related Act), exceed those to be returned under the tax-related Acts;

2. Where the deficit amount or refundable tax amount entered in the tax base return (referred to the deficit amount or refundable tax amount after such decision or correction is made, in case where such decision or correction is made pursuant to the provisions of each tax-related Act), is short of the deficit amount or refundable tax amount

(4) The provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs with respect to a person having income falling under Article 73 (1) 1 through 8 of the Income Tax Act (hereafter referred to as "person having employment income, etc." in this paragraph and Article 52). In such cases, "person who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return" in the part other than the subparagraphs of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be deemed "person who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return", "tax withholding agent or wage income earner, etc. who has filed a payment report within the due date of return pursuant to Article 164 of the Income Tax Act after the due date of payment", "after the due date of return expires" in the part other than the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) 1 shall be deemed "after the due date of payment of the annual tax-end or withholding tax amount", "tax base and tax amount entered in the tax return", and "amount of

1. Where a withholding agent pays his income tax according to his year-end tax settlement under Articles 137, 138, 143-4 and 144-2 of the Income Tax Act and submits a payment record within the deadline for submission under Article 164 of the same Act;

2. Where a withholding agent pays the income tax withheld at source under Article 146 of the Income Tax Act, and submits a payment record under Article 164 of the same Act within the deadline for submission; and

The Addenda

Article 1 (Enforcement Date)

This Act shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation.

Article 4 (Application Examples concerning Requests for Correction, etc.)

The amended provisions of Article 45-2 (4) shall apply to the tax year in which this Act enters into force.

【Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Ο 제49조 (근로소득의 수입시기)

(1) The receipt date of the total amount of wage and salary income shall be as follows:

3. Any bonus to any executive officer or stockholder, employee or other investor of a corporation incurred in the report on the income amount for the concerned business year or in the decision or rectification of the chief of a tax office;

The date of providing labor during the relevant business year;

Ο 제192조 (소득처분에 의한 배당 • 상여 및 기타소득의 지급시기 의제)

(1) In determining or correcting the corporate income amount under the Corporate Tax Act, the dividends, bonuses and other incomes disposed of shall be notified by the head of a tax office or the director of a regional tax office who makes the determination or correction of the corporate income amount to the corporation concerned by a notice on change of the income amount as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy within 15 days from the date of the determination or correction: Provided, That where the location of the corporation concerned is unclear or it is impossible to serve the notice, or where the corporation concerned falls under the provisions of Article 86 (1) 1, 2 and 4 of the National Tax Collection Act, he shall notify the relevant stockholder and the resident who has

(2) In cases falling under paragraph (1), dividends, bonuses and other income shall be deemed paid or recovered on the date when the notice is received.