Whether a decision of notifying payment without payment after the report of transfer tax is subject to a claim.

Notice of the amount of tax payable for the final tax return on transfer tax shall not be subject to the claim.

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's disposition of duty payment notice of KRW 66,589,160 for the plaintiff on July 1, 2005 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2001.11.13. 원고의 처 김◯◯이 사망하자 처 소유의 ◯◯시 ◯◯구 ◯◯동 ◯◯◯-1, ◯◯◯-11 토지 및 그 지상건물(이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)을 상속받았다.

나. 이 사건 부동산이 ◯◯◯◯ 주거환경개선사업지구에 편입되어 2003.8.20. 대한주택공사로부터 수용되자, 원고는 2004.5.31. 피고에게 이 사건 부동산에 대한 양도소득세 59,534,349원을 확정신고를 하였다.

C. However, as the Plaintiff did not report capital gains tax, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on July 1, 2005 that KRW 66,589,160 (=59,534,349 + KRW 7,054,820 + KRW 7,054,820, plus KRW 7,000, KRW 10).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, 4, 5 evidence, Eul 1-1, 2-2, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of tax payment notice against the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been transferred since it did not inherit the real estate of this case, and thus, the transfer tax payment notice against the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been issued. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that since the transfer tax return method takes place, the above preliminary return amount is finalized, and that the tax payment notice was issued to pay the same amount as the reported tax amount

B. Determination

From January 1, 200, capital gains tax is converted from the first transfer by the tax return method, and is obligated to pay the tax amount with the return determined at the time when the taxpayer files the tax base and tax amount. Thus, if a taxpayer merely files a tax base and tax return and notifies the tax payer that the tax amount should be paid without any correction as to the reported matters without any correction, it is a final tax collection disposition to collect the tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8180, Sept. 3, 2004) and cannot be deemed as a taxation subject to revocation lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8180, Sept. 3, 2004). Since the Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount on capital gains tax following the transfer, and thereby, the tax base and tax amount are determined. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s issuance of the above tax notice merely issued the tax amount calculated by the return without any correction on the said reported matters for the sole purpose of collecting the tax amount determined by the taxpayer’s return.

Therefore, on the premise that the Defendant’s notice of tax payment on July 1, 2005 falls under the imposition disposition, seeking revocation of the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit seeking revocation of a non-existent disposition is unlawful (On the other hand, apart from the fact that the Plaintiff may make a request for correction pursuant to the provision of Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes on the ground that

3. Conclusion

If so, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.