Seoul Administrative Court 2008Gudan17847 ( October 13, 2010)

Seocho 208west 1773 (Law No. 9, 2008)

Appropriateness of the assertion that the imposition of additional tax is improper on justifiable grounds

The penalty tax for failure to report shall be the penalty tax for failure to report as long as one house for one household is non-taxable even if the requirements for residence for two years are not satisfied.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

44 44 44 44 44 45 44 444 64 44

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. The part exceeding KRW 2,624,224 of the imposition disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 14,864,630, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on March 1, 2008, exceeds KRW 2,624,224.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is partially modified, and the judgment of the plaintiff is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the judgment of the plaintiff as to the plaintiff's assertion to the following. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article

A. The second page 20 "2,624,224 won" is "2,624,223 won", and the third page 1 "361,061,304 won" is "361,062,304 won".

B. The sum of the 3rd page 2-1 and 12,024,704 additional tax on non-declaration of report is calculated by adding 12,024,704 won to 215,711 won for additional tax on negligent return.

C. On the 5th page, the additional tax on the 3rd column is added as the additional tax on negligent tax returns, and on the 6th page, the additional tax on the 1st and 2th column is added as the additional tax on the 1st and 2th column.

2. Additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In a case where the expected return on the profits accruing from the transfer of property and the payment was made under the deadline, the instant disposition is unlawful in light of the determination precedents of the National Tax Tribunal to the purport that in the event that the Defendant fails to make a decision and notify the transfer income tax within the final return period,

B. Determination

The defendant also has a private theory that had been a precedent of the National Tax Tribunal's decision prior to July 5, 2000 to the same effect as the plaintiff asserted.

However, the National Tax Tribunal rendered a decision on July 5, 200 (the Supreme Court Decision 2000Du5944 delivered on April 12, 2002) that imposing the tax on the under-reported income at the time of the preliminary return after the lapse of the final return period is justifiable, and the same opinion has been maintained since the decision that it is reasonable to impose the tax on the under-reported income at the time of the final return, and the Supreme Court also did not make a final return on the legitimate tax amount after filing and paying the transfer income tax at the time of the final return on the transfer income, the Supreme Court held that when imposing the transfer income tax after the deadline for the final return on the transfer income tax, the legitimate tax amount exceeding the amount of the tax return and the under-reported additional tax on the under-reported return under the Income Tax Act may be imposed

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless as it goes against the Supreme Court precedents and the decisions of the National Tax Tribunal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just because the plaintiff's claim is groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal.