Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap15849 ( March 20, 2015)

The taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he/she has filed an excessive report.

In an appeal litigation seeking revocation of a disposition of increase or decrease, a taxpayer may assert and contest the grounds for tax authorities' excessive report as well as the grounds for tax authorities' increase or decrease, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff filed an excessive report equivalent to the amount of the "total of the difference in the comparison table" column among the revenues related to the Dried Corporation.

2015Nu3952 global income and revocation of disposition

IsaA

O Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap15849 decided March 20, 2015

December 2, 2015

January 13, 2016

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax amounting to KRW 117,314,30 for the Plaintiff on October 2, 2013, the imposition of global income tax amounting to KRW 70,909,10 for the year 2010, and KRW 38,010,640 for the year 201 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation about this part shall be based on the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (2 pages 2 to 3).

As such, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

this subsection shall be quoted by the court.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Violation in calculating the total amount of income

The plaintiff's assertion and proof convenience as to illegality in calculating the tax base of the disposition of this case

The National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "National Health Insurance Corporation") that accounts for the largest portion of the amount of insurance benefits received by the plaintiff

Even if only the amount of revenue related to the Plaintiff’s excessive return exceeds KRW 978,203,798 (=438,175,238 (2009) +379,286,810 (2010) + 160,741,750 (2011) of each under-reported return calculated by the Defendant, 497,586,556 won (N=252,019,313 (2009) + 153,026,335 won (2010) +92,540,908 won (201) of the Plaintiff’s excessive return amount. The instant disposition asserted that it was unlawful on the premise that only the under-reported return amount was made without considering the Plaintiff’s excessive return amount.

(2) Violation of the principle of good faith

Although the Defendant collected only the underreported amount among individual items based on the Plaintiff’s global income tax return, it is against the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of gold speech to the effect that the Plaintiff’s argument to deny the Plaintiff’s overall report when intending to prove the existence of excessive reported amount.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether there is an illegality in relation to excessive reported amount

(A) Relevant legal principles

Detection of under-reported imports in filing a return on the tax base, etc. of global income tax;

tax authorities may add the omitted income to the income amount, if any, to the taxpayer.

(a) In filing a return on tax base, etc., only the underreported amount by specific item shall not be reported.

(d) If an excessive return amount is also filed, the taxpayer shall seek cancellation of the disposition of increase or decrease.

In this lawsuit, not only the grounds for tax authorities' increase or decrease, but also the grounds for tax authorities' excessive reporting on the initial report.

A thickness may be asserted and contested (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du11733, Apr. 18, 2013). In such cases, the fact that a person liable for duty payment filed an excessive tax return accords with the empirical rule and the principle of equity that the person liable for duty payment bears the burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu10695, Jul. 28, 1992; 201Du28076, Apr. 28, 2011).

(B) Facts of recognition

① Income statement attached when filing a final return of global income tax base for the period between 2009 and 2011

Among the subordinate items of the sales account of the medical insurance revenue account, the medical examination account, and the medical care revenue account included the same amount as each of the following table (hereinafter referred to as "non-surbation table").

(2) The OO hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “O hospital of this case”) issued by the president of the Dosan Industrial Complex around April 2014.

(3) The insurance benefit costs of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "Certification Institute of this case") shall be 2009

As between 2011 and 2011, the Health Insurance Corporation paid to the instant hospital [specific items related to the health insurance (health care benefits) under Article 39 of the National Health Protection Act, items related to health examinations under Article 47 of the same Act, and items related to the protection (medical care benefits) prescribed by the Medical Care Assistance Act] stated the following amount in the table of comparison.

(3) Sales accounts of income statements attached when the plaintiff filed a final tax base return on global income tax.

In addition to the above medical insurance revenue account, health examination account, medical care revenue account, automatic accident insurance revenue account;

There are next insurance revenue account, non-insurance account, etc.

④ The Corporation shall submit to the Plaintiff the annual payment details issued by the Corporation on January or February of the year following the pertinent year.

The items of the "medical care benefit cost" include the contents related to the health insurance (medical care benefits) under Article 39 of the National Health Protection Act, and the contents related to the health examination under Article 47 of the same Act, respectively (However, in relation to the payment in 2009, the items of the "medical care benefit cost" include the contents related to the health care benefit and the contents related to the health examination, together with the contents related to the health care benefit) and the "medical care benefit cost items" include the contents related to the protection (medical care benefits) under the Medical Care Assistance Act. The sum of each year according to the items is as follows.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 5, 6, 9, each 3, Gap evidence 2-16, and Gap evidence 10

1-11, Gap evidence 14-1, 2, and 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(C) Whether the excess reported amount is proved or not

In full view of the following circumstances known by the facts found earlier:

In this regard, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is the difference in the comparison table among the revenues related to the Construction Corporation.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the government reported excessive amount equivalent to the total amount of the disturbance, and the above facts are different.

the Plaintiff’s filing of global income tax on the global income tax, the Plaintiff’s filing of the global income tax on the global income

The Plaintiff’s above assertion on the premise that there was the reported amount is without need for further review.

shall not be held.

① The Plaintiff’s medical insurance revenue account of income statements attached at the final return of global income tax base.

The items of health insurance (medical care benefits) and the medical care revenue account for the above income statement, and this item;

Protection of Health Examination Items of the Certification Board, the health examination account of the above income statement, and the Certification Board

(1) The medical care items are responding to each other, and the above income statement is asserted that the Corporation prepared a report on the annual payment details issued to the Plaintiff at January or February of the year following the corresponding year, but the amount stated as the "medical care expenses", "health examination expenses", and "medical care expenses" in the above annual payment details written by the Plaintiff is the amount which is not entirely related to the "medical insurance revenue account", "health examination" account, "medical care income account", and rather, the amount which is the same or very weak amount as the amount stated in the "Health Insurance (Medical Care Benefits) item," "Health Examination (Medical Care Benefits) item," and "Medical Care (Medical Care Benefits) item," written by the Plaintiff.

(2) The amount of each account of the above income statement shall be compared to the amount of the certificate for this case and each item.

On the other hand, any item is excessively counted, while any item is excessively less included (e.g., the amount appropriated in the 'health examination' account of income statement between 2009 to 2011 is less than 5-8 times the amount indicated as the 'health examination expense of the 'health examination expense of the 'Health Examination Fee' of the 2009 to 2011). There is no significant correlation in light of the ratio or amount between the amount per item (e.g., the amount entered as the 'health examination expense of the 'Health Care expense' of the 'Health Care expense' of the 2009 to 2010 is smaller than the amount appropriated in the 'Health Care Benefit Account of the 'Health Care expense of the 'Health Care expense' of the 'Health Care expense of the 'Health Care

③ The excessive reported amount claimed by the Plaintiff is about KRW 1 billion in total for three years between 2009 to 2011.

In light of the period and amount, it is difficult to regard it as a simple error in the tax return, and it is difficult to understand that a large amount of excessive tax return exceeding one billion won over three years over the real income.

(4) Sales accounts of income statements attached when the plaintiff filed a final return of global income tax base.

In addition to the above medical insurance revenue account, health examination account, medical care revenue account, automatic accident insurance revenue account;

There is a tea insurance revenue account and non-insurance account, and it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the amount to be appropriated in the industrial accident insurance revenue account, automobile insurance revenue account, and non-insurance account would have been erroneously appropriated in the medical insurance revenue account, health examination account, and medical care revenue account. Therefore, in order to verify whether there is an excessive reported amount by the Plaintiff, it is necessary to specify an excessive reported amount by comparing all the documents of the account related to the Plaintiff’s sales with the evidence of all accounts related to the Plaintiff’s sales. However, the Plaintiff only specifies an excessive reported amount related to the medical insurance revenue account, health examination account, and medical care revenue account, which is only part of the account, through simple comparison with the amount indicated in the instant verification source that is not related to the said account (On the other hand, the amount stated in the verification source of this case is irrelevant to the “the year of reversion of income” as the date on which the insurance benefits were actually paid. Thus, it is erroneous in specifying the excessive reported amount

(2) Whether the principle of good faith is violated

Detection of under-reported imports in filing a return on the tax base, etc. of global income tax;

If the tax authority imposes tax on the omitted income by adding it to the amount of income.

In this case, it is a precedent that the taxpayer of global income tax has reported excessive income than the actual income.

Since such circumstances are the circumstances, the taxpayer is responsible for proving such circumstances.

(1) If the taxpayer does not have any reasonable assertion or certification, the excessive amount of the report shall be deemed to be nonexistent.

It is consistent with the rule of experience, and there is such excessive amount of report, and the plaintiff proves its existence.

If it is impossible to issue an order or to determine the amount, it shall be a certificate, such as submission of evidence about excessive reporting.

It is fair to look at the disadvantage of the plaintiff easily (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10695, referring to Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10695, supra).

As seen earlier, the amount of under-reported revenue of the Defendant based on the instant disposition is the amount of under-reported revenue

It is not related to the revenue and expenditure of the Foundation, and the defendant needs to submit to the plaintiff an account book.

As sought, the Plaintiff demanded a substantive verification on the excessive reported amount. The Plaintiff is only the Plaintiff

The sole ground of the assertion by the defendant is that the disposition of this case or the defendant's pleading is a principle of trust and good faith.

The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to violate the doctrine of speech. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The instant disposition is legitimate. The instant judgment of the first instance court, which concluded otherwise, has been revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim is filed.

The dismissal is dismissed.