Whether the additional and increased additional charges incurred due to the expiration of the payment period for the adjusted amount pursuant to the recommendations for mediation are included;

The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful since there is no room for the tax authorities to determine whether to impose additional charges or aggravated additional charges because the additional charges or aggravated additional charges are imposed in addition to the principal charges, and there is no possibility for the tax authorities to decide whether to impose additional charges or aggravated

Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 5,33,180 on global income tax for the year 199 against the Plaintiff on July 11, 2007, each disposition of imposition of KRW 11,680,130 on global income tax for the year 200, additional 13,065,950 on global income tax, and additional 11,680,130 on global income tax for the year 201 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of each entry and pleading in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1 through 3, 1-1 through 3, 2-1 through 3, and 2-1 through 3, and 2-1 through 3:

A. On April 1, 2005, the Defendant newly calculated the Plaintiff’s total amount of income, etc. as the global income tax amount for 1999, and notified the Plaintiff of the increased or decreased amount of KRW 30,087,120 as global income tax for 200, and KRW 88,442,60 as global income tax for 200, and KRW 54,645,880 as global income tax for 201 (including additional tax) (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”), and “The Plaintiff appealed against this and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of each of the instant dispositions as 2006Guhap3780, and received a favorable decision for revocation of each of the instant dispositions on June 30, 206. The Defendant’s appeal against this issue, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition for 206Nu176750, KRW 209, KRW 3809, KRW 209, KRW 4809, KRW 2095.

2. If the defendant makes a disposition of correction under the above paragraph (1), the plaintiff immediately withdraws the lawsuit of this case, and the defendant consents thereto.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

C. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to accept all the mediation recommendations of the above division. Accordingly, the defendant decided to correct the global income tax by reducing the amount of each disposition of this case from 14,493,211 won among the global income tax for the year 1999, and the amount of 49,314,062 won among the global income tax for the year 200 and the global income tax for the year 20,493,80 won among the global income tax for the year 2001 (as a result, the amount of tax remaining after the reduction was determined as the above mediation recommendation amount, but the difference is due to the fractional disposition).

D. On July 11, 2007, the Defendant calculated additional charges and aggravated additional charges for the delinquent period from April 1, 2005 to July 11, 2007, which was the due date of each of the dispositions of this case, from the date of the payment of each of the dispositions of this case on April 1, 2005, to the date of July 11, 2007, and collected additional charges and aggravated additional charges for the global income tax of KRW 5,33,180 for KRW 15,59,00 for KRW 15,593.90 for global income tax of KRW 13,065,950 for global income tax of KRW 39,128,540 for year 200, global income tax of KRW 34,152,00 for year 20 for global income tax of KRW 34,152,00 for year 20.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff

According to the recommendation of the mediation panel of the appellate court, the amount of the global income tax belonging to each year remains more than a certain amount of the global income tax, and the plaintiff was withdrawn from the lawsuit by accepting it, and the defendant's additional imposition and collection of additional dues in addition to the amount recognized in the recommendation of mediation should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Defendant

1) The instant defense

A) The instant global income tax additional charges amounting to the additional dues and aggravated additional dues as stipulated in Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act are unlawful, since the instant global income tax additional charges do not exist, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit based on the premise of the disposition of

B) Even if a family disposition exists, the instant lawsuit is unlawful by failing to undergo a request for examination or adjudgment under Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

2) The assertion on the merits

If national taxes are not paid by the due date pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act, the additional dues and increased additional dues are the kind of incidental taxes imposed in the meaning of interest for arrears on unpaid portion. It naturally occurs under the provisions of the Act without the due date of the person having the authority to impose taxes, and the amount of the additional dues and increased additional dues are determined accordingly. It is natural to collect the amount of the tax corrected according to the recommendation for adjustment of the additional dues and increased additional dues in accordance with Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act by adding it to the principal tax naturally collected in accordance with Articles 21 and

3. Relevant statutes;

National Tax Collection Act

Article 21 (Additional Dues)

If national taxes are not paid in full by the payment deadline, additional dues equivalent to 3/100 of the national taxes in arrears shall be collected from the date on which the payment deadline expires: Provided, That this shall not apply to the State and local governments (including associations of local governments

Article 22 (Additional Dues)

(1) If national taxes in arrears are not paid, a surcharge equivalent to 12/1,00 of the national taxes in arrears plus the surcharge under Article 21 (hereinafter referred to as "increased surcharge") shall be collected each time when one month elapses from the date on which the time limit for payment expires. In this case, the period for which the increased surcharge is additionally collected shall not exceed 60 months.

4. Determination

A. The additional dues and increased additional dues under Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act are all kind of incidental dues imposed in the meaning of interest on 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 for payment, they are naturally created under Articles 21 and 22 of the same Act, and the amount thereof can be determined by the due date. If a person liable for taxation fails to pay national taxes by the due date without the due date for payment by the due date, the person liable for taxation can demand the payment by the due date. Thus, if the due date for payment is unreasonable or procedural defects exist, the person liable for objection against the due date by the due date for the cancellation shall be allowed, or if the tax authority did not perform any act to determine the additional dues and increased additional dues, no additional dues and increased additional dues shall be imposed by the due date for one month after the due date for payment by the due date (Supreme Court Decision 200Du2013 Decided September 22, 200).

According to the facts in the future, on April 1, 2005, the Defendant issued each of the instant dispositions to increase the amount of global income tax on the ground that the Plaintiff’s return amount of global income tax was wrong, and thereafter, made a disposition to reduce or correct the amount of tax according to the recommendation of the instant adjustment, and imposed additional and increased additional taxes calculated pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act on the grounds that the Defendant received taxes from the Defendant, and did not perform any act to determine additional and increased additional taxes.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation on the premise of the existence of the disposition imposing additional dues and aggravated additional dues is unlawful, and the defendant's main defense to this point is with merit.

B. The purport of the instant recommendation was to revoke all the taxes exceeding the amount recognized in the recommendation after the Plaintiff calculated all the tax amount until the time. Since the Defendant accepted the recommendation, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay only the amount recognized in the recommendation, and in addition, additional dues and increased additional dues are not required. However, it is apparent that the instant recommendation was made to the effect that the portion exceeding the specified amount is revoked (e.g., the amount exceeding KRW 15,482,913 among the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 30,087,120 for the year 199, the additional dues and increased additional dues for the portion of the principal tax corresponding to the reduced amount is naturally extinguished, and the additional dues and increased additional dues are naturally remaining for the remaining amount) and the additional dues and increased additional dues are naturally generated by the law, and thus, there is no room for the tax authorities to determine whether to impose them arbitrarily.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is inappropriate, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the plaintiff's argument on the merits.