Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap27049 ( October 06, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du3041 ( October 20, 2011)

Whether reduction or exemption can be applied retroactively to the business year whose exclusion period has elapsed.

In the case of a business year for which ex officio reduction cannot be made after the expiration of the exclusion period as well as the deadline for filing a request for rectification, it shall not be retroactively reduced or exempted even if it satisfies the requirements for reduction or exemption.

2012Nu12251 Revocation of the imposition of corporate tax

AAA, Inc.

Head of the tax office;

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap27049 decided April 6, 2012

May 7, 2013

July 19, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

In the first place, and on June 11, 2010, the part that exceeds the OOO members among the disposition of the OOO members of the corporate tax for the business year of 2006 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

Preliminaryly, the defendant's disposition on June 11, 2010 on the fixed number of the corporate tax for the business year 2006 and the disposition on the imposition of additional tax OOOO directors shall be revoked.

1. Corporate tax;

The following facts are recognized in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 2-1, and Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole argument:

[1]

The plaintiff was engaged in precious metal manufacturing business with the head office and factory facilities in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and transferred the head office and factory facilities to Jeonnam-do, on July 6, 2001.

○ Accordingly, the Plaintiff was subject to the tax reduction or exemption under Article 63 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as "tax reduction or exemption") in the business year from 2001 to 2004.

○○, on April 6, 2006, the Plaintiff re-transfer its head office to Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

[2]

The plaintiff reported and paid OOOO as corporate tax for 2006 business year, and the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office was the plaintiff, and the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office was subject to the tax reduction or exemption as above due to the relocation of the headquarters as above, and the interest under Article 63 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 63 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act were paid as corporate tax for 2006 business year.

○ Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a revised return of corporate tax for the business year 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "first revised return") around October 2008.

At the time of ○○, the Plaintiff added up the above OOOO members subject to the tax reduction or exemption for the business year 2001 to 2004 as above, while at the time of 2001 to 2004, the Plaintiff could be subject to the tax reduction or exemption for corporate tax under Article 7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as "small or Medium Enterprise") for the business year 2001 to 2004. The above OOO members were deducted from the above OO members, and the interest under Article 63 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was added up.

○ Accordingly, the Plaintiff reported the corporate tax for 2006 business year, including the initially reported and paid OOO(OO) and the additional tax for failure to pay OO(=OOOwon + OOOOwon).

○ The Plaintiff paid the tax amount of the first revised return.

[3]

In April 2010, the director of Seoul Regional Tax Office sent to the Plaintiff a document of the title "Guidance for Change of Reduction or Exemption of Small or Medium Enterprises to Local Area", and the business year 2001 and corporate tax for 2002 can not be subject to reduction or exemption of small or medium enterprise since the exclusion period of imposition expires. In this regard, the part corresponding to the business year 2001 and 2002 business year was excluded from the deduction of the amount of reduction or exemption of small or medium enterprise at the time of the first revised return, and announced the Plaintiff to return again.

At the time of ○, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office stated at the end of the above document that “if he has an objection against such notification, he shall submit explanatory data within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice, and shall submit explanatory data for the week.”

○ Accordingly, on April 14, 2010, the Plaintiff again filed a revised return of corporate tax for the business year 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "second revised return").

At the time of the first revised return, the plaintiff was excluded from the deduction of the OO won, which is the part corresponding to the business year 2001 and the 2002 business year, and added the interest prescribed in Article 63 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

○ Accordingly, the Plaintiff reported additional tax OOO and OOOO for 6 2006 corporate tax year, and 6 206.

○ The Plaintiff did not pay the tax amount of the second revised return.

[4]

○○ on June 11, 2010, the Defendant sent the “payment” to the Plaintiff, and notified the second revised return of △△ to pay additional tax for the year 2006 corporate tax, the second revised return of △△, and the second revised return of △△△, and the additional tax for the nonperformance of payment until June 11, 2010, and the total amount of OOOO(=OOOOO + + OOOOOOO + + + OOOOOOO) to pay a number of less than 10 won (hereinafter “the instant payment notice”).

○ The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for trial on September 8, 2010, but was dismissed on May 20, 2011, and on May 25, 2011, the Plaintiff served a written notice of the decision and filed the instant lawsuit on August 18, 201.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

(a) The primary claim

On April 6, 2006, the Plaintiff re-transfer its head office to Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and paid the OOOO and interest subject to tax reduction or exemption for the business year 2001 or 2004 business year as corporate tax for 2006. The second revised return has been made without any choice to avoid disadvantages in the event that the Plaintiff refuses to comply with the report, as the tax authority notifies the Plaintiff of the correction of the tax base and amount of tax in substance after the tax authorities completed the correction of the tax base and amount of tax, and in the sense that the second revised return is notified, the second revised return does not constitute a revised return under Article 45 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Therefore, the instant notice of payment by the OOOO members is a disposition that revises corporate tax for the business year of 2006 by increasing the OO members of the first revised report (=OO0 + OO00).

However, the instant notice of payment is based on the grounds that it was not subject to reduction or exemption in the business year 2001 and the business year 2002, and the legitimate tax amount to which such reduction or exemption is applied is an OO of the first revised return. As such, the instant notice of payment seeks to revoke the portion exceeding OOO won among the instant notice of payment, which is subject to the imposition of OOOwon.

(b) Preliminary claim

If the second revised return constitutes a revised return under Article 45 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the payment notice of this case is a disposition of collecting OOO personnel who cut less than 10 won from the second revised return of △△, and a disposition of imposing additional tax for failing to pay additional tax until June 11, 2010 after the second revised return and additional tax for failing to pay until June 11, 2010.

Since the second amendment declaration is invalid in light of the circumstances seen earlier, this defect is succeeded to the above collection disposition, while the payment notice of this case is unlawful as it is based on the reason that the small and medium enterprise was not subject to tax reduction or exemption in the business year 2001 and 2002 business years, and thus, it seeks revocation of the instant payment notice, which is the collection disposition by OOOOwon and the imposition disposition by OOOOOwon.

3. Tax reduction or exemption;

The Plaintiff’s primary and conjunctive claims are based on whether the instant payment notice is deemed a tax disposition or a fixed number of claims, and the instant payment notice is illegal on the ground that it was not subject to tax reduction or exemption in the business year 2001 and the business year 2002. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s primary and conjunctive claims are examined first, as to whether the said payment notice is subject to tax reduction or exemption in the above business year.

(a) Tax reduction or exemption to local areas;

(1) On July 6, 2001, when the Plaintiff moved the head office and factory facilities from Jongno-gu Seoul to Jeonbuk-si, Article 63 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter "the Restriction of Special Taxation Act") as amended on December 29, 2000, provides that when a small or medium enterprise for which two years have passed since its start-up relocates its entire factory facilities to an area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area (if its head office or main office is located in the Seoul Metropolitan area, it is limited to the relocation of the head office or main office at the same time) and starts-up business by December 31, 2003, the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the corporate tax shall be reduced for the taxable year in which the date of transfer falls, and for the taxable year which ends within three years after the start-up of the following taxable year, the tax amount equivalent to 50/100 of the corporate tax shall be reduced or exempted for the taxable year which ends within five years thereafter.

Article 63 (2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act amended on December 29, 2001 provides that when a small or medium enterprise subject to reduction and exemption under paragraph (1) does not fall under the case where it relocates its factory to an area other than the Seoul Metropolitan area and starts its business under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the tax amount calculated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be paid as corporate

Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act amended on December 31, 2001, and Article 63 (2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the tax amount calculated as prescribed by the Presidential Decree means the corporate tax amount reduced or exempted under Article 63 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act after the date of relocation of the factory.

On the other hand, Article 63 (3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 63 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provide that when the corporate tax amount reduced or exempted under paragraph (2) is paid under paragraph (2), the amount equivalent to the interest calculated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall

These provisions were maintained in addition to the changes in the area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area where the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was amended on December 31, 2005, and the area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area was changed to ‘area outside the overconcentration control region outside the Seoul Metropolitan area', and the taxable year to which the tax reduction or exemption is applied.

(2) According to the above provisions, the tax reduction or exemption under Article 63 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and when a small or medium enterprise relocates its factory facilities to an area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area, the corporate tax amount shall be reduced or exempted, and thereafter the corporate tax and interest that was reduced or exempted in the previous business year shall be paid as corporate tax for the business year in which the date of relocating the factory facilities falls.

Such reduction or exemption of corporate tax on the relocation of the factory facilities outside the Seoul Metropolitan area, while inducing the relocation of the factory facilities by providing the benefit of corporate tax reduction or exemption for the relocation of the factory facilities to the Seoul Metropolitan area, and in case of the relocation of the factory facilities after such relocation, it is intended to secure the effectiveness of the relocation of the factory facilities by imposing sanctions to escape the benefits of corporate tax

It is possible to impose sanctions by depriving of the above benefits, and to ex post exclude the application of the tax reduction or exemption to the corporate tax for the previous business year in which the former business year was subject to the reduction or exemption to local areas from the application of the tax reduction or exemption for the previous business year before the previous business year. On the other hand, it can be said that the corporate tax amount subject to the tax reduction or exemption for the previous business year may be paid as corporate tax for the relevant business year to which the date of relocating factory facilities belongs, and Article 63 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act selects the latter method.

(3) Therefore, Article 63 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act does not change the liability to pay corporate tax finalized by the report at the time for the previous business year where the factory facilities were relocated to the Seoul Metropolitan area, and the factory facilities were relocated to the Seoul Metropolitan area.

(b) Tax reduction or exemption;

(1) Article 7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act amended on December 29, 2000 provides for the reduction or exemption of the amount of tax calculated by applying the corporate tax reduction or exemption rate to the income accrued from the business in question until the taxable year ending on or before December 31, 2003, and stipulates the reduction or exemption rate for the national who operates the small or medium enterprise in the area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area as 30/100.

Article 7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act amended on December 30, 2003 provides that the reduction or exemption shall be made not later than the taxable year ending on or before December 31, 2003, and that it shall be made not later than the taxable year ending on or before December 31, 2005.

On the other hand, Article 127 (5) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act until December 31, 2005, and Article 63 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provide that where two or more provisions can be applied to the same business place of a national in the same taxable year, only one of them can be selected as applicable.

(2) According to the above provisions, tax reduction or exemption under Article 7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and corporate tax reduction or exemption in cases where a small or medium enterprise operates a small or medium enterprise outside the Seoul Metropolitan area, and such reduction or exemption, as a matter of course, shall be subject to reduction or exemption if the requirements for reduction or exemption are met (Supreme Court Decision 2003Du773 Decided November 12, 2004).

Therefore, if a small and medium enterprise relocates its factory facilities to another area and operates the business, it satisfies the requirements for local tax reduction and exemption, and in this case, according to Article 127 (5) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, it can be applied by selecting only one of the tax reduction and exemption from local areas and the tax reduction and exemption from small and medium enterprise, and it is possible to grant

If the above option is exercised to relocate the factory facilities to the Seoul Metropolitan area, the corporate tax amount and interest subject to reduction or exemption under Article 63 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the corporate tax amount and interest subject to the previous tax reduction or exemption in the previous business year should be paid as corporate tax for the business year of the year to which the person liable for tax payment belongs, and it is intended to ensure the effectiveness of the relocation of the factory facilities by imposing sanctions to deprive the benefits of reduction or exemption of corporate tax already granted in the previous business year.

Therefore, the above cases where factory facilities were re-transfered, and as a result of the previous exercise of the option according to its own will, it cannot be seen as the same cases where small and medium enterprises were not subject to tax reduction or exemption, and only small and medium enterprises could have been subject to tax reduction or exemption without the choice to exercise.

On the other hand, corporate tax is a taxation period imposed on income for each business year, and the tax amount calculated by multiplying the tax base by the tax rate on income for each business year shall be deducted, and the tax amount shall be added after the tax credit is granted. The Restriction of Special Taxation Act only stipulates that "tax credit" under Article 144 (1) may be carried forward after the whole amendment on December 28, 1998, and the "tax reduction or exemption" is not allowed to be carried forward.

In addition, Article 63 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that if factory facilities are relocated to the Seoul Metropolitan area, there shall be no change in the liability for payment of corporate tax finalized by the sentence at the time of the transfer of the factory facilities to the Seoul Metropolitan area.

(3) Thus, where a small and medium enterprise is not subject to tax reduction or exemption due to the exercise of the option as above, and the corporate tax amount subject to tax reduction or exemption for the previous business year should be paid as corporate tax for the relevant business year to which the date of relocating the factory facilities belongs by relocating the factory facilities on its own will, and where the requirements for tax reduction or exemption are met, it cannot be deemed that a small and medium enterprise could be subject to tax reduction or exemption for the previous business year as a matter of course due to its exercise of the right to choose △△, and that a change in the grounds for re-transfer of factory facilities based on its own will in the previous business year. Therefore, in such a case, separate regulations or separate procedures are necessary to apply to a small and medium enterprise

(c) Corporate tax for 206 business year; and

(1) According to the facts found earlier, the Plaintiff, while carrying on the precious metal manufacturing business with the head office and factory facilities in Jongno-gu Seoul, transferred the head office and factory facilities to Jeonbuk-si on July 6, 2001, and accordingly, received tax reduction or exemption from corporate tax under the application of tax reduction or exemption from the corporate tax for the tax year 2001 to 2004, and transferred the head office to Jongno-gu Seoul on April 6, 2006, and the first revised return was filed on October 2008.

Therefore, the Plaintiff should pay the interest on the light of the OOO members to local areas in the business year 201 through 2004 as corporate tax for 2006 business years in which the date of the re-transfer of the headquarters belongs to the date of the re-transfer of the headquarters. With respect to the corporate tax for the business year 2001 through 2004 business years, there was no change in the liability for corporate tax payment confirmed by the report at the time for the △△△ 2001 through 2004 business years, and there was no change in the exercise of the right to choose △△△ 201 through 204 business years, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff could be subject to reduction or exemption of the tax amount for the business year 201

(2) The Restriction of Special Taxation Act or the Corporate Tax Act does not have any separate provision on whether a small or medium enterprise is eligible to be reduced or exempted, and Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes amended on July 13, 2005 provides that Article A(1) and Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes may file a request for correction within three years after the statutory due date of return elapses, and Article 6(2) provide that when a cause occurs, a request for correction may be filed within two months after the date when the cause thereof was known, regardless of the above one year period.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff can file a claim for correction because it is subject to tax reduction or exemption for small and medium enterprises in the business year 2001 or 2004, and in October 2008 when the plaintiff filed the first revised return, 3 years have passed since the statutory due date of return of corporate tax in the business year 2001 or 2004, and 2 months have passed since April 6, 2006, which is the date of the relocation of the head office.

Thus, the plaintiff can not make a request for correction as he is subject to tax reduction or exemption in the business year of 2001 to 2004.

(3) On the other hand, even if the taxation authority can correct it as being subject to reduction or exemption in the business year of 2001 through 2004, and when the exclusion period expires, the taxation authority cannot take any disposition such as a new decision or a new decision for correction of increase, as well as a decision for correction of reduction, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2000Du6657 Decided September 24, 2002). On the other hand, around October 2008 when the plaintiff filed the first revised return, the exclusion period expires after five years from the date on which the corporate tax for the business year of 201 and 2002 business year can be imposed.

Thus, even as the taxation authority can not correct the tax reduction or exemption as being applied to small and medium enterprises in the 2001 business year and 2002 business year, and it can only be corrected as being subject to tax reduction or exemption in the 2003 business year and 2004 business year.

According to Article 26-2 (5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 12-3 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the exclusion period for the imposition of national taxes shall begin from the date on which a cause for collecting the amount of tax credit arises where the relevant amount of tax credit, etc. is collected due to nonperformance of duty. This provision applies to cases where the relevant amount of tax credit, etc. is applied to cases where a factory facility is relocated to a metropolitan area and the factory facility is relocated to another metropolitan area and the factory facility is relocated to the Seoul metropolitan area and the factory facility is relocated to the former metropolitan area

Therefore, the above provision cannot be applied where a small and medium enterprise is not subject to tax reduction or exemption because it is subject to the application of tax reduction or exemption to local areas in the previous business year on the ground that the above factory facilities are relocated, and the relevant factory tax reduction or exemption is not due to the relocation of local areas, and it is not due to the lack of obligation, and it is corrected to apply such tax reduction or exemption to such small and medium enterprise.

If so, as seen earlier, the taxation authority should rectify the tax reduction or exemption for small and medium enterprises, and the starting date of the exclusion period for taxation can impose corporate tax for 2001 business year and 2002 business year as seen above, and the date when the cause of nonperformance, etc. occurred under Article 26-2 (5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 12-3 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is the date of the re-transfer of the head office, shall not be deemed the starting date of the exclusion period for taxation.

(4) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant payment notice was unlawful on the ground that it was not subject to reduction or exemption in the business year 2001 and the business year 2002, and that it was not subject to reduction or exemption in the business year 2001 and 2002, is without merit.

4. The primary claim and the conjunctive claim.

(a) The second revised report;

(1) According to the above facts, the plaintiff transferred its head office to Jongno-gu Seoul on April 6, 2006, and transferred its head office to 2001 through 2004, and paid the OOO and interest for 206 business years as corporate tax. The director of Seoul Regional Tax Office instructed the plaintiff to submit the revised tax return for 2006 business years to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff was able to receive tax reduction or exemption from the corporate tax for 2001 through 204 business years, and the revised tax reduction or exemption from the revised tax for 2006 business years after deducting the revised tax reduction or exemption from the 2000-year corporate tax reduction or exemption from the revised tax return for 200-year tax reduction or exemption from the 200-year tax reduction or exemption from the revised tax return for 200-year tax reduction or exemption from the 200-year tax reduction or exemption from the 200-year tax reduction or exemption from the 200-year tax reduction or exemption from the 20-year tax reduction or exemption from the 20-year.

(2) According to the above circumstances, the second revised report constitutes a revised report under Article 45(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and in the sense that the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notifies the plaintiff of the revised report after actually completing the tax base and amount of tax, the second revised report is inevitably made without any choice to avoid any disadvantage if the plaintiff refuses to comply with the report, and the second revised report does not constitute a revised report under Article 45(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes or the second revised report cannot be deemed null and void.

B. The instant notice of payment

(1) According to the facts found earlier, the Plaintiff did not pay the above amount of tax for the second revised return, and the Defendant sent the Plaintiff on June 11, 2010, and issued the instant notice of payment to the Plaintiff to pay the amount of tax for the second revised return, and to pay additional tax for the 2006 corporate tax for the second revised return of △△△, the additional tax for the Omission, and the additional tax for the honest payment until June 11, 2010 after the second revised return of △△△△ was filed, and the additional tax for the OO and the total amount of OOO OO less than 10 won.

If the principal tax is returned at the time of filing the tax base and amount of tax, it is necessary to impose additional tax on the tax authority in order to determine the obligation to pay penalty tax in good faith if the tax return is not made at the time of filing the tax base and amount of tax, and the tax return is not paid.

24.Supreme Court Decision 95Nu15704 Decided 24.

(2) If so, the instant notice of payment is the disposition imposing additional tax for failure to pay the aggregate of the fixed number of OOO(the amount obtained by cutting off the amount less than 10 won) of corporate tax for the business year 2006, and the OOOO(the additional tax for failure to pay the 6th revised sentence, and the OOO(the additional tax for failure to pay the OOO) of additional tax for failure to pay until June 11, 2010 after the second revised return.

C. The primary claim

(1) As the primary claim, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant notice of payment by the OOOwon (the amount before cutting down the amount less than 10 won) is a tax disposition that the OOwon increases the amount of the first revised return and revises the corporate tax for 2006 business year to the OOwon, and that the instant notice of payment is unlawful on the ground that it was not subject to the tax reduction or exemption in the business year 2001 and the business year 2002, and that the instant notice of payment is unlawful on the ground that it was not subject to the tax reduction or exemption by the small and medium enterprise. As such, among the instant notice of payment, the instant notice of payment, which is subject to the tax reduction or exemption by the OOOwon, sought the revocation of the portion exceeding the

This main claim is to seek the cancellation of the part of the OO which is to be increased by the instant notice of payment, and finally, by examining the instant notice of payment as the imposition of the OOO, and among them.

(2) However, the instant payment notice is the disposition of collecting the corporate tax for the 2006 business year, which was finalized by the second revised return of △△, and the disposition of imposing the OOO of the additional tax for the payment of △△△.

Tax on the method of filing a return is a collection disposition for the collection of the final tax, and it cannot be deemed that the tax amount is determined when the taxpayer files a return on the tax base and amount of tax, and the same applies to a return on the revised tax base and amount of tax, and that the tax authority notifies the taxpayer that the taxpayer should pay the same amount of tax as the reported amount without any correction concerning the matters that the taxpayer filed by reason of the failure to pay the amount of tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8180, Sept. 3, 2004).

(3) Therefore, as seen earlier, the part of the OOO which the Plaintiff seeks revocation upon the primary claim, which became final and conclusive by the second revised return, and the part of the OOOO in the business year 2006, which was final and conclusive by the second revised return, shall be deemed as the disposition of imposition, and it shall be dismissed as unlawful and unlawful.

On the other hand, the remaining part of the plaintiff's primary claim seeking revocation is legitimate, but its claim is based on the premise that the plaintiff can be subject to tax reduction or exemption in the business year 2001 and the business year 2002, and such reduction or exemption in the small and medium enterprise is not applicable. Therefore, the remaining part of the primary claim is dismissed due to its lack of reason.

(4) The judgment of the court of first instance judged that the portion of the OOO which the plaintiff seeks revocation upon the main claim is unlawful, including the portion of the 2006 business year and the portion of the OOOO which was confirmed by the second revised return, and the portion of the OOO which was determined by the 206 business year and the additional tax due to the 2nd revised return, and dismissed the lawsuit as to such portion of the OOO of the main claim, and dismissed the other surrounding claims. It is improper to recognize that the above portion is more inappropriate than

However, only the plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be modified disadvantageous to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's appeal against the primary claim will be dismissed.

(d) Preliminary claim.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant payment notice was a preliminary claim, and that it was final by the second revision order of △△△, and that the second revised return was null and void, and that such defect was succeeded to the said collection disposition, and that the instant payment notice was unlawful on the ground that it was not subject to reduction and exemption of the tax amount for the business year 2001 and 2002 business years, and that the instant payment notice was sought revocation of the instant payment notice, which is the full number of OOO members and the instant imposition disposition of OOOO members.

(2) According to the above, the instant notice of payment is asserted as the conjunctive claim by the Plaintiff.

However, the second revised return cannot be deemed null and void, and the second revised return cannot be applied to small and medium enterprises in the business year 2001 and the business year 2002, and therefore, the second revised return and the preliminary claim are without merit.

(3) The first instance court's decision rejected the conjunctive claim, and it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal about the conjunctive claim.

5. Conclusion

As seen above, all of the plaintiff's appeals are dismissed as to the main and conjunctive claims. It is so decided as per Disposition.