Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Jeong Young-hoon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The director of the tax office

March 21, 2017

1. On December 21, 2015, the Defendant’s rejection of the Defendant’s request for correction of the respective amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax of 1,606,210,870 won, special rural development tax of 321,242,170 won, and comprehensive real estate holding tax of 2013, 1,670,250,470 won, and special rural development tax of 334,050,100 won shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. (1) On December 15, 2009, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 7,589,881,360 of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2009 and KRW 1,517,976,260 to the Defendant.

(2) On November 16, 2010, the Defendant imposed KRW 8,639,012,020 of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2010 and KRW 1,727,802,40 of the special rural development tax for the Plaintiff.

(3) On November 21, 2012, the Defendant imposed KRW 10,099,014,028 of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2012 on the Plaintiff and KRW 2,019,802,805 of the special rural development tax, and the Plaintiff paid each of the said taxes around that time.

(4) On November 26, 2013, the Defendant imposed a comprehensive real estate tax of KRW 10,489,860,910 and a special rural development tax of KRW 2,097,972,162 on the Plaintiff for the year 2013, and the Plaintiff paid each of the said taxes around that time (hereinafter “the total real estate tax and the special rural development tax”).

B. The plaintiff and the defendant calculated the amount of Class 2 Gross Real Estate Tax Act [the former Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010); the former Attached Tax Act applied to the Class 2, 209, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the " Class 3, hereinafter referred to as the " Class 2," and Articles 9 and 14 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act; 2, the amount of Class 2, 3, and 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22813, Mar. 31, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act") 】 the amount of Class 2, 3, and 9 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2016, Mar. 1, 2013).

C. On February 26, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the method of deduction of the amount of property tax was wrong, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit to revoke a request for reduction on April 14, 2010 (Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap47091) to reject a request for correction on April 14, 2010. On January 19, 2012, the lower court rendered a decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal on September 27, 2012 (Seoul High Court 2012Nu5949) (Seoul High Court 201Du23563). The lower court’s decision to revoke the return of the amount of property tax to be deducted under the formula of 25th Enforcement Decree of the Seoul High Court 205 (Seoul High Court 201Du23563) was written on July 9, 2015 (the amount of property tax to be deducted under the formula of 15th Enforcement Decree of the Seoul High Court 2010).

D. In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the method of deducting the amount of property tax was erroneous in the final tax for the final tax for the year 2010, and the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on April 13, 2012 by filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of the part exceeding the justifiable amount of tax (Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap37824), among the final tax imposition disposition for the final tax for the year 2010, but the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2012Nu13032) rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. However, in light of the purport of the judgment of the foregoing Supreme Court on October 27, 2015 from the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2012Nu13032), it was sentenced to the revocation of the portion exceeding the justifiable amount of tax among the final tax imposition disposition for the final tax for the year 2010 (Supreme Court 2015Du39422).

E. The Plaintiff asserted that there was an error in the method of deduction of the property tax as referred to in the above paragraph (c) even in the case of the land annexed tax for the year 2012 and the land annexed tax for the year 2013. On November 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the amount of reduction of KRW 1,606,210,870 for the land annexed tax for the year 2012, and KRW 321,242,170 for the farmland specific tax for the year 2013, and KRW 1,670,250 for the land annexed tax for the year 2013, and KRW 334,050 for the farmland special tax for the 334,100,100 for the farmland special tax for the 3334,050,100 for the 2013 (hereinafter “instant request for correction”), but the Defendant rejected the instant request for correction on the grounds that it was filed 90 days after the date.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff should have filed a claim for correction within 90 days from the date when the plaintiff was notified of a disposition of imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the attached tax for the year 2012 and the attached tax for the year 2013 pursuant to the proviso of Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Since the plaintiff's claim for correction was filed on November 2, 2015 after the 90th day from the date when the plaintiff became aware of such disposition, the defendant's notice of rejection of the claim for correction of this case cannot be deemed as the rejection disposition subject to the appeal litigation, and thus, the lawsuit

On the other hand, as long as the defendant's notification that the plaintiff has the right to request correction is subject to the rejection disposition of the claim for correction, it cannot be viewed that the refusal of the claim for correction has any impact on whether the refusal of the claim for correction constitutes a disposition subject to appeal litigation. Thus, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 45-2(1) main text of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory due date of return may file a request with the head of the competent tax office for determination or correction of the tax base and amount of national tax for which the initial return and the revised return have been filed within five years after the statutory due date of return expires. The proviso of the above provision provides that with respect to an increased tax base and amount of tax due to the determination or correction, a request for correction may be filed within 90 days (limited to five years after the statutory due date of return expires) from the date (where a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt) after the person becomes aware of the relevant disposition. The above provision provides that a request for correction may be filed for five years with respect to the tax base and amount of tax originally filed and the amount of tax, and it is unreasonable to view that the exercise of the right which the taxpayer had with respect to the initial return, etc. is restricted to 90 days due to the determination or correction of the tax base and amount of tax in this case.

Meanwhile, the main text of Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “a person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory deadline for filing a tax return” may file a request for correction pursuant to the said Article, and the said request for correction does not impose restrictions on taxes limited to the method of tax return and payment. As such, even in the case of taxation on the method of imposition, if the relevant provisions provide for the duty of cooperation to a taxpayer,

B. Article 10-2 subparag. 3 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 16(1) and (3) of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act shall be imposed on the comprehensive real estate holding tax in principle, but the so-called selective payment method which permits the return and payment also is adopted. Article 8(3) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act, Articles 3(8) and 4(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that a taxpayer shall prepare a report on the exclusion of aggregate by stating the details of rental housing, etc. which the taxpayer is excluded from the subject of the total real estate holding tax, and shall report from September 16 to September 30 of the relevant year. Article 16(3) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act, Article 8(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a taxpayer who intends to pay the comprehensive real estate holding tax by means of return and payment shall report the tax base, additional tax amount and tax amount to be paid by December 15 of the relevant year.

Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Return (hereinafter “instant report”) under Article 8(3) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act is recognized on September 30, 2013, when comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in the evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 3, and 4, the Plaintiff is entitled to file a request for correction by submitting a tax base return within the statutory due date of return of return of return of return of tax base under the main sentence of Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes until September 30, 2012 with respect to the attached tax for the year 2012, and the attached tax for the year 2013, through the program (hereinafter “CRAX-C”) of the comprehensive real estate holding tax return of each National Tax Service on September 30, 2013. As such, it is reasonable to deem the Plaintiff to be a person who can file a request for correction by submitting the tax base return of return of tax base by September 30, 2012.

(1) Upon the commencement of the instant program, the screen called “comprehensive real estate holding tax return system” is implemented, after registering his/her personal information, the person liable to pay taxes is required to prepare a detailed statement of items subject to taxation on housing, a report of exclusion of adding up rental housing, a report of exclusion of adding up housing to employees, a detailed statement of items subject to taxation on aggregate land, a statement of exclusion of adding up land for newly built houses, a statement of goods subject to taxation on aggregate land, a statement of goods subject to taxation on aggregate land, a statement of exclusion of adding up of land for newly built houses, a statement of goods subject to taxation on aggregate real estate holding tax in the order of comprehensive real estate holding tax. If a person registers a house in preparing a detailed statement of objects subject to taxation on housing, such information as the date of acquisition, total area, taxation area, equity ratio, unit area, date of acquisition, date of acquisition, change of the date of acquisition, the officially announced price of land in the relevant year and immediately preceding year, the price of the comprehensive real estate holding tax, and the amount of property tax imposed on the immediately preceding year shall be registered together.

② The tax base of comprehensive real estate holding tax is calculated by multiplying the tax base and tax amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax by the fair market price ratio based on the “public notice price” of real estate (see Articles 8 and 13 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act, in principle, the tax base of comprehensive real estate holding tax is calculated by multiplying the amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax by the fair market price ratio.). The amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax to be submitted by a taxpayer who intends to pay the comprehensive real estate holding tax by the method of return and payment under Article 16(3) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act and Article 8(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act shall be the same as the amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax, a detailed statement of objects of taxation, and a detailed statement of calculating the maximum amount of the tax burden, except for the matters concerning the maximum amount of the tax burden if the taxpayer files an application for the comprehensive real estate holding tax return, a final return of comprehensive real estate holding tax prepared by the Plaintiff in the process of return and payment.

(3) If a taxpayer files a return using the instant program, etc. pursuant to Article 8 (3) of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act, Articles 3 (8) and 4 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Defendant shall determine and notify the amount of comprehensive real estate tax to be paid by not later than five days (one November 26) before the date on which the payment period commences in the relevant year, based on such determination and notification, and the payment period shall be from December 1 to December 15 of the relevant year: Provided, That if a taxpayer intends to pay a real estate tax by the method of return and payment, the taxpayer shall file a return on the amount of comprehensive real estate tax to be paid within the same period from December 1 to December 15 of the relevant year, which is the same, and Article 8 (2) of the Enforcement Rule, and file a return on the amount of such comprehensive real estate tax to be paid within the relevant period from 9th day to December 15, 1997>

The Plaintiff asserts that the tax base and amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax determined and notified by the Defendant were mechanically calculated based on the result of the instant return made by the Plaintiff using the instant program, and that the said determined and notified tax amount had no special dispute. The Plaintiff provided information necessary to calculate the tax base and amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax to the tax authority by September 30 of the pertinent year through the instant report, and based on which the Defendant decided and notified the tax amount, and filed a return of the tax base and amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax from December 1 to December 15 of the pertinent year, which is the period of return due to the Plaintiff’s failure to implement the return of exclusion by September 30 of the pertinent year, it is identical in nature in that the Plaintiff provided the tax authority with information necessary for the tax base and amount of tax. However, the Plaintiff, who filed the instant report by September 30 of the pertinent year, paid comprehensive real estate holding tax to the Plaintiff by the imposition method without undergoing the procedure of return and payment, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it would be in violation of the main text of Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act.

④ In full view of these points, the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant return using the instant program is a taxpayer’s duty to cooperate with the tax authorities to determine the tax base and amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax, which is a taxation method, and thus has the same meaning as filing the tax base return. Therefore, the Plaintiff ought to be deemed to be “a person who has filed the tax base return within the statutory due date of return” under the main sentence of Article 4

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s instant disposition that dismissed the instant claim for correction on the ground that the period for filing a request for correction was expired, on the grounds that the instant request for correction was filed on September 30, 2018, which was September 30, 2017, before September 30, 2017, which was within five years from September 30, 2012, and on the final tax, etc. reverted to the year 2013, before September 30, 2018, which was within five years from September 30, 2013, the statutory due date for filing the request for correction.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the disposition of this case is revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)