Suwon District Court 2013Gudan2543 (No. 27, 2013)

Considering the work history, the recipient of compensation for farming loss, etc., it is difficult to see that he/she has re-established or self-developed for at least eight years.

(As with the judgment of the first instance court) In full view of the Plaintiff’s work history, the recipient of the key farmland farming compensation fund, etc., it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff has been re-established or self-employed for at least eight years.

2013Nu49106 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Transfer Income Tax

United StatesA

The superintendent of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan2543 Decided September 27, 2013

March 28, 2014

May 16, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to ○○○○ on September 1, 2012 against the plaintiff on September 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition, and thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

(1) The following shall be added to Chapter 3, Chapter 7:

(3) No additional dues can be imposed during the grace period, and the additional dues imposed by the defendant during the grace period is illegal.

(2) The following shall be added in front of the 6th page 1:

(3) The Plaintiff asserted the revocation of the additional dues in the appellate trial, but this is not included in the purport of the claim sought by the Plaintiff, and thus, it is not subject to a trial by this Court.

Even if the Plaintiff added the purport of the claim in the appellate trial, if the additional dues under Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act do not pay national taxes by the due date of payment, it naturally occurs under the legal provisions without the final procedure of the competent tax office, so notification of additional dues cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da15482, Jun. 10, 2005). The lawsuit on the part on the claim for revocation of additional dues is dismissed only.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.