logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1985. 2. 8. 선고 83누677 판결
[종합소득세부과처분취소][공1985.4.1.(749),431]
Main Issues

In case where a person living together filed a voluntary report on the tax, but the principal income earner did not report the sum of his property income;

Summary of Judgment

Even if a mother living together had already reported and paid global income tax, etc. on the real estate rental income owned by him, if the principal income earner did not report the total amount of the above property income, it shall be deemed to fall under the time when he reported under Article 121(1) of the Income Tax Act in light of the provisions of Articles 80(1) and 103 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the taxation imposing additional tax on him is legitimate.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 80(1), 103, and 121(1) of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee

Head of North Korean Tax Office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu144 delivered on November 8, 1983

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s voluntary declaration was lawful in light of the above legal principles, and that the Plaintiff did not report the amount of real estate income for the year 1981, which was acquired by leasing real estate owned by the Nonparty, to KRW 95,429,481 as well as KRW 43,961,20, KRW 8,792, and KRW 241 as income from the above business on May 21, 1982, and KRW 993,93,930 as global income from the above business, and KRW 23,635,00, KRW 2363 as global income from the above business, and the mother living together with the Plaintiff, who did not report the amount of real estate income for the year 1981, which was derived from the lease of the real estate owned by the Nonparty, and that the Plaintiff did not report the amount of income from the above taxation under the provisions of Article 10 (1) of the Income Tax Act, since the Plaintiff did not report the amount of income from the above taxation.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)

arrow