Seocho 2014west 2310 ( December 11, 2014)

2 The second notification is nothing more than reducing the amount of tax notified by the first notification, so it is not subject to appeal litigation separately.

If the first notification becomes final and conclusive, a lawsuit seeking nullification and revocation of the portion exceeding the increased increased increased increased increased additional charges by the second notification is unlawful, and the legality of the notice for payment of increased increased additional charges cannot be asserted on the grounds of defects in the contents of the principal tax.

Article 24 (Succession of Tax Liability due to Inheritance)

2015Guhap56922 Demanding nullification of a disposition of designation as joint and several taxpayers

1. 00 AA2. AB

O Head of tax office

October 8, 2015

October 29, 2015

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s collection disposition of each capital gains taxOOO (including additional charges and increased additional charges) against the Plaintiffs on February 6, 2014, seeking confirmation and revocation of the portion exceeding each increased OOOO’s KRW (including additional charges and increased additional charges) is dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining primary claims and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The primary purport of the claim is the collection disposition of each capital gains tax OOO (including additional charges and increased additional charges) made by the defendant against the plaintiffs on February 6, 2014 [the complaint of this case includes "the designation disposition of joint and several tax obligors against the plaintiffs" but according to the evidence No. 4, the date of the above disposition (the date can not be seen as the disposition that is the object of an appeal litigation) is " February 6, 2014," and the designation disposition of joint and several tax payers referred to in the plaintiffs is confirmed to be invalid as follows. The "the designation disposition of joint and several tax payers" is ultimately a collection disposition ordering the plaintiffs to pay the capital gains tax that has already become final and conclusive prior to the death of the net PCC, and the collection disposition of additional charges and increased additional charges therefor shall be deemed to be invalid.

Preliminary claim: The collection of each transfer income tax OOO(including additional charges and increased additional charges) against the plaintiffs on February 6, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Case history

A. On July 17, 2009, the non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') transferred OOOOO-O large 221.6 square meters and above-ground buildings to non-party D Co., Ltd. on July 17, 2009, and reported the tax base of transfer income to the defendant on September 17, 2009, but did not pay the relevant transfer income tax.

B. Accordingly, on January 2, 2010, the Defendant notified the Deceased that he would pay the transfer income tax OOOO to the Deceased, but the Deceased died on December 16, 2010 without paying it.

C. After that, on December 18, 2013, the Defendant, based on Article 24 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”), designated the Plaintiffs, legal successors of the deceased, and Nonparty 0E and 0F as joint taxpayers of the said capital gains tax, and issued a notice of payment by the OOOO (including additional dues and increased additional dues) of each capital gains tax (hereinafter “the first notice”). The grounds for calculating the above amount of tax are as shown in attached Form 1.

D. After that, on February 6, 2014, on the grounds that the increased additional charges were calculated from January 201 to January 2014 among the first notice of the instant case, the Defendant issued a notice to pay additional OO directors (=OOO directors - OO directors) for each inheritor’s additional charges for February 2014 (=OO directors x (OO directors / four persons), and less than KRW 4 persons (hereinafter “second notice”). The grounds for calculating the amount of the said taxes are as set forth in attached Table 2).

E. The Plaintiffs, 0E, and 00 FF were dissatisfied with the instant second notice and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 18, 2014. However, according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal on December 11, 2014, only the appeals filed by 0E and 00 FF on July 7, 2014 and July 18, 2014, prior to the said decision, were accepted, and the Plaintiffs’ appeal was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-5, Gap evidence 6-1 and 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Disposition of the second notification of this case

A disposition of reduction or correction is not an original return or a separate tax disposition, but an original return or a separate tax disposition, and its substance is a disposition that leads to a modification of the original return or a disposition of imposition, and thereby brings about a favorable effect to taxpayers, such as partial revocation of the amount of tax. Therefore, in a case where an appeal is filed against the remainder of the original return or a disposition of imposition without revocation, the object of an appeal is the remainder that is not revoked by a decision of correction among the initial return or a disposition of imposition, and the decision of reduction correction is not subject to an appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du27247, Sept. 27

The first notification of this case constitutes a collection disposition against the plaintiffs who are liable to pay capital gains tax pursuant to Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act as the plaintiffs succeeded to the duty to pay capital gains tax of 00CC which has been established by inheritance. The remainder of the second notification of this case except for the increased additional charges for February 2014, which was additionally notified among the second notification of this case, shall be deemed to have been delivered to the plaintiffs around that time unless there are special circumstances such as return of mail by registration (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51758, Dec. 27, 2007; 2007Da51758, Dec. 27, 2007). Since the first notification of this case was sent to the plaintiffs on December 20, 2013, the first notification of this case was not deemed to have been delivered to the plaintiffs by the first notification of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51758, Dec. 27, 2013).

Therefore, as long as the first notification of this case is confirmed, all lawsuits seeking confirmation of invalidity and revocation of the portion exceeding each OOOO of the increased additional charges for February 2014 among the second notification of this case are unlawful.

B. Disposition of issuing an increased additional payment notice

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's tax liability shall be automatically succeeded to when the inheritance of the plaintiffs commences in accordance with Article 24 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the second notification of this case shall not only be succeeded to by the second notification of this case, and that the second notification of this case shall not be viewed as a disposition subject to appeal, and that the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidation and revocation

On the other hand, among the second notifications of this case, the lawsuits seeking confirmation of invalidity and revocation of the portion exceeding each OOO Won of February 2014 are both unlawful. As such, this part of the issue is eventually the issue of whether the disposition of the increased additional dues can be recognized as a result of February 2014. In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 4, it is acknowledged that the second notice of this case was issued to the plaintiffs that the increased additional dues for February 2014, which the plaintiffs should pay, were determined as OO Won by February 28, 2014, and that the second notice of this case was issued to the plaintiffs that the increased additional dues for February 2014 were determined as each OOO won and thus, it constitutes a collection of an objection by an appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Du2013, Sept. 22, 200; hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of increased additional dues").

Therefore, this part of the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant did not specifically explain the grounds that the Plaintiffs were jointly and severally liable for the payment of taxes or the method of filing an appeal against the said disposition.

2) The Defendant, based on the Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na37386 Decided October 26, 2012, deemed that the Plaintiffs succeeded to the claim for reimbursement amounting to the amount equivalent to the amount of the claim for reimbursement from the deceased, and thus, disposed of the instant case. However, the said judgment did not render a conclusive judgment as to the existence of the claim for reimbursement, and as such, the above claim for reimbursement amount was not lost, the Defendant’s disposition in this case was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment 3] The entry in the relevant statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

(i) procedural defects;

First, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the defendant, through the notice of this case Nos. 1 and 2 and the prior notice of May 2, 2013, was recognized as having explained the plaintiffs in detail about the details of inherited property, the current status of legal heir and the calculation process of the tax amount. Thus, the prior plaintiffs' assertion on different premise is without merit.

Next, Article 9 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "the director of a tax office intends to collect national taxes, he/she shall issue a taxpayer a tax notice stating the taxable period, items, amount of national taxes, basis for calculation, deadline for payment and place for payment of national taxes." Since Article 26 of the Administrative Procedures Act (Article 3 (1) of the same Act is excluded from the application of this case) does not provide that the taxpayer shall notify the method of appeal, such as Article 26 of the Administrative Procedures Act (Article 3 (1)

(ii) any defect in the content;

Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act is a kind of incidental tax imposed in the meaning of a interest in arrears if national taxes are not paid by the due date, and if national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date of payment by the due date without the due date of payment by the person having the authority to impose taxes, it naturally occurs under Article 21 of the same Act and the amount thereof is determined (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du2013, Sept. 22, 2000)

However, the reasons alleged by the plaintiffs are about defects in the contents of the principal tax (the grounds that do not constitute grounds for invalidation of a matter of course) and it does not affect the legitimacy of the disposition of this case concerning the collection of increased additional dues. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiffs' lawsuits in this case, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for nullification and revocation of each increased amount exceeding the increased amount of OOOO (including additional charges and increased amount) among the collection dispositions of each capital gains tax imposed by the defendant against the plaintiffs on February 6, 2014 is unlawful and dismissed. The plaintiffs' remaining primary claims and preliminary claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.