A. The meaning of "when an omission or error exists" under Article 45 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

(b) Where there is no calculated tax amount in the calculation of the tax base return, whether the other tax credits omitted in the initial return corresponds to the revised return of the tax base.

A. The revised tax base return system under Article 45(1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to prevent unreasonable tax burden due to the details of a tax return that is not consistent with the substance and to determine the tax claim and liability relationship based on the substance between a taxpayer and a tax authority. As such, the term "when an omission or error is found" under Article 45(1) of the same Act shall be construed by limiting the cases where a tax return is not consistent with the substance and where a tax return was filed in accordance with the substance as to the matters on which the tax base or tax amount is calculated, and where a return was filed in accordance with the substance, it shall be construed by limiting it to cases where the tax base or tax amount is not in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Act or subordinate statutes or where there is error in the calculation of the tax amount. It shall not be deemed that all the matters to increase or decrease the

B. If the corporate tax of a corporation for one business year is in a state where the amount of non-taxable income and income deduction exceeds the amount of business income at the calculation stage of the tax base, there is no room to apply the tax credit for the amount of paid-in foreign currency or interest income tax on bills denominated in foreign currency, which is the subject of the tax credit premised on the existence of the calculated tax amount. Thus, even if the tax credit amount was omitted in the initial return, it does not constitute the increase or decrease of the

(a) Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 24-3 (1) and (2) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 78-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu823 delivered on June 20, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. First, we examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 4.

Article 26 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a domestic corporation liable to pay taxes shall file a written return on the tax base and amount of corporate tax on income for each business year under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree within 15 days from the date on which the settlement of accounts for each business year becomes final and conclusive. Article 5 (1) of the Defense Tax Act provides that a person liable to pay corporate tax shall also file a return on the amount of corporate tax under the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 45 (1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a person who files a return on the tax base may file a revised return within a specified period from the expiration of the statutory filing period if the tax base is omitted or erroneous; and Article 45 (1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the tax base return shall be filed within 60 days from the date on which the revised return is filed to the Government, or that the tax base return shall be corrected to meet the requirements of substantial tax return or omission in calculating the amount of tax to be paid by the tax authority, regardless of the form or omission of the tax base.

According to the above legal reasoning of the court below, it was just for 1981.1-12, 31 of the business year of the Plaintiff bank to which the above tax base return was rejected as 8,203, 247, 91 of the tax base return, 450, 962 of the tax base return and 400, 423, 628, 157 of the tax credit amount for the interest income deduction amount which was not reported as 96, 47 of the tax base return and 97 of the Plaintiff bank's tax base return and 40 of the tax credit amount which was not reported as 1,260, 47 of the tax base return and 97 of the tax credit amount which was not reported as 5,00,000 won for the above tax base return and 47 of the tax credit amount which was not reported as 5,000 won for the above tax base return and 97,000 won for the above tax credit amount.

2. We examine the third ground for appeal.

As seen above, the judgment of the court below that the corporate tax base reported by the Plaintiff bank to comply with the original substance is incidental to the non-taxable income and the amount of income deduction in excess of the business income amount, and that it cannot be accepted as the revised return because there is no room to deduct the foreign tax amount and the interest income amount on foreign currency bills from the corporate tax amount, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it did not reject the Plaintiff’s assertion. Thus, there is no

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)