[1] The meaning of "justifiable cause" under Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the method of determining the "justifiable cause"

[2] The meaning of the arrears under Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

[3] The time when the act of evading value-added tax was committed

[1] Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act / [2] Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Articles 3 (1), 5, 9, and 11 of the National Tax Collection Act / [3] Articles 9 and 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Articles 3 (1) and 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Do2858 Decided October 27, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 2481) Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5456 Decided November 23, 2006 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da21120 Decided October 30, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2559), Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1419 Decided May 31, 2007 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do746 Decided July 23, 2002 (Gong202Ha, 2115)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008No1318 Decided July 18, 2008

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The term "justifiable cause" under Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act includes not only causes for taxpayers unable to pay taxes in mind, such as natural disasters, fire, war, or other disaster, or theft, but also causes for taxpayers having difficulty in paying taxes due to their economic circumstances, such as illness of taxpayers or their family members living together, declaration of bankruptcy, and commencement of auction of taxpayers' property. Furthermore, in determining whether a justifiable reason exists, the determination shall be made on an individual basis of specific cases by taking into account the details of the delinquency, arrears, and period in full consideration of the legislative intent of the punishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do2858, Oct. 27, 200; 2006Do5456, Nov. 23, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is justified in holding that the company of this case did not have any justifiable reason for failing to pay taxes, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence as asserted in the Grounds for Appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that a taxpayer shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than one year or by a fine equivalent to an amount in arrears where the taxpayer fails to pay national taxes more than three times a fiscal year without any justifiable reason. The term "payment in arrears of national taxes" means that the taxpayer has the time limit for payment without paying national taxes by the time limit for payment (see Article 3(1) of the National Tax Collection Act), and the head of a tax office may designate the time limit for payment in 30 days from the date of the notice of payment in national taxes (see Article 11 of the National Tax Collection Act). The time limit for payment refers to the time limit for payment in national taxes designated by the head of a tax office through a notice of payment ordering the tax payment in arrears, payment in national taxes, or a notice of payment in accordance with the decision of collection by the head of a tax office (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1419, May 31, 2007).

Meanwhile, Article 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that the time when an act of tax evasion under Article 9 of the same Act was committed shall be when the time when the time limit for payment expires after the Government makes a decision or examination on the tax base of the relevant tax item in the case of taxes imposed and collected by the taxpayer's report, and when the time limit for payment expires in the case of taxes not corresponding to the above time limit for payment. Thus, the act of tax evasion of value-added tax under Articles 3 (1) and 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act constitutes an act of violation of Article 3 (1) and 25 days after the end of each taxable period from January 1 to June 30 of the first term portion and from July 1 to December 31 of the second term portion (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do746, Jul. 23, 2002).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, among the criminal facts of this case committed by the defendant guilty, the term of payment includes the total of 743,550 won (the amount stated in the last column of the annexed crime list (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance) and the total of 10,878,580 won (the amount stated in the last column of the annexed crime list (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance) of value-added tax and additional dues on December 31, 2006, which are 10,878,580 won (the amount stated in the last column of the annexed crime list (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance) of wage and salary income tax and additional dues on December 31, 20

However, in light of the above legal principles, the delinquent date of each of the above national taxes is the following day of each payment deadline or January 26 of the following year. Accordingly, the above earned income tax and additional dues are delinquent for the fiscal year of 2006, not the fiscal year of 2005, and the value-added tax and additional dues shall be deemed delinquent for the fiscal year of 2007, not the fiscal year of 2006.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of all the facts constituting the crime of this case without properly examining the date of delinquency in national tax. It erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal on this point is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)