Seocho 2013west 2123, 2017.10

It can not be said that there is a justifiable reason that the plaintiff does not report or pay the amount of tax properly calculated under the tax law.

The fact that the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax on the basis of the transfer amount agreed with a person with a special relationship does not constitute justifiable grounds for the Plaintiff’s failure to properly report and pay the amount of tax calculated under the tax law.

2013Gudan20694 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Song AA

O Head of tax office

September 3, 2014

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding the revocation of the disposition of imposition of transfer income tax (additionally paid OO) for the year 2007 shall be dismissed. 2. The Plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 8, 2007, the Plaintiff, as the representative director of the GG corporation, transferred 00 shares of the said company (hereinafter referred to as the “instant shares”) to Han, who is a specially related person, (hereinafter referred to as the “instant transfer”).

B. Around December 28, 2011, the Plaintiff reported the transfer value of the instant shares to the head of the OO, under the premise that the transfer value of the instant shares is O won and that the acquisition value is O won (i.e., calculated O won + O won for additional tax + O won for additional tax) and paid it on December 30, 201. On January 10, 2013, the Defendant calculated the transfer value of the instant shares as OO on the ground that the instant transfer falls under the low-price transfer value to a specially related person, and calculated the transfer value of the instant shares as 100 won (i.e., the calculated O., the additional tax + 100 won for additional tax + 20 won for additional tax for additional tax for additional tax for additional tax for 10 won (i.e., the Defendant reduced the transfer value of the instant shares to the Plaintiff as 100 won and the additional tax for additional tax for additional tax for additional tax for additional tax for additional tax for additional tax for 4.0 won).

F. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2-1, Eul 1 to 8-3

2. Whether the part seeking the cancellation of the OO for Additional Payment among the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, as the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought to revoke the remainder, excluding the already paid portion as of December 30, 201 and the reduction and correction portion as of April 26, 201, among the disposition imposing the additional tax as of January 10, 2013. However, as seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Defendant additionally reduced and corrected OO for Additional Payment on July 15, 2014, the part seeking the cancellation of the said additional reduction and correction is deemed unlawful.

3. Whether the disposition of additional tax in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the instant penalty tax disposition is unlawful.

Since it cannot be expected that ○○ taxpayer should report and pay capital gains tax by applying the unfair calculation calculation panel provision to the taxpayer, if the tax authority revises capital gains tax by applying the unfair calculation panel provision, it is not possible to impose a return and additional tax on the taxpayer.

The calculation of penalty tax against the Plaintiff shall be based on January 8, 2013 or April 26, 2013, which is the date on which a tax notice is served.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under the tax law is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the Act if a taxpayer violates the tax return and tax liability under the Act without justifiable grounds. Thus, unless there are justifiable grounds for not misunderstanding the taxpayer’s neglect of tax obligations, additional tax should be imposed on the taxpayer for nonperformance of tax obligations under the tax law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Du3515, Aug. 20, 199; 99Du7876, Jan. 30, 2001; 2006Du5809, Aug. 24, 2006; 2006Du5809, etc.). In addition, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff failed to report and pay the tax amount properly calculated according to the tax law without justifiable grounds for the return and payment of the transfer income tax under the tax law should be deemed a reasonable tax amount calculated under the tax law, and thus, the Plaintiff’s failure to apply the tax return and payment of the transfer income tax to the Plaintiff’s company.

(2) According to the relevant laws and regulations, if a taxpayer has reported and paid the transfer income tax by no later than May 31 of the year following the year in which the transfer income is attributed, and has neglected to do so, the additional tax without filing a return (or an amount equivalent to 20/100 of the amount of tax due, the amount of tax due, and the amount of tax due for unfaithful payment 】 the day following the due date of payment 】 the day following the year in which the transfer income is attributed 】 the period from June 1 of the year following the year in which the transfer income is attributed to the date of voluntary payment or the date of notice of tax payment 】 the period from the date of voluntary payment or the date of notice of tax payment 】 the interest rate applied by financial institutions to the overdue withdrawal x the transfer of the instant stocks in 207, the Plaintiff is obligated to report and pay the transfer income tax due to the transfer of this case by no later than May 31, 208. The Plaintiff

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion to this different purport is without merit.

(3) The instant additional tax disposition is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Of the instant lawsuit, the part seeking cancellation of OO for Additional Payment is unlawful, and thus, the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim, i.e., the part seeking cancellation of the remainder, excluding the remainder of the previous payment, is dismissed as it is without merit.