It does not constitute a rejection disposition subject to appeal litigation.

Since there is no obligation to correct the tax base and the amount of tax on the claim for correction filed after the lapse of three months from the date of payment of the additional collection charge, or to refuse the request for correction, it is not subject to appeal litigation.

Request for correction, etc. under Article 45-2 of the Framework Act

2017Guhap6406 Revocation of Disposition of Dismissal, etc. of Global Income Tax Correction

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

October 26, 2017

January 11, 2018

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The dismissal order of the global income tax filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on September 13, 2016 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff was sentenced to two (2) years, additional collection, 200,000 won for the enforcement oil, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 8, 2012, for two (2) years, for the crime of taking property in breach of trust at theCC District Court (hereinafter “CC District Court”). After that, the Plaintiff was fully paid the penalty surcharge capital, 200,000 won on July 1, 2013.

B. On September 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) considered the instant surcharge-based penalty-based income, KRW 200,000 as other income under the Income Tax Act; (b) determined and notified the Plaintiff of the total global income tax, KRW 161; and (c) labor-based income tax as indicated in the following table; and (d) on September 30, 2013 and December 90, 2013, the Plaintiff paid all the global income tax.

C. On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition for grievance seeking a refund of global income tax paid as described in the foregoing paragraph (b) with the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Du5514 Decided July 16, 2015 (hereinafter “instant en banc Decision”), stating that “if any illegal income was confiscated or collected on July 22, 2016 due to a crime such as breach of trust taking place, it shall be a ground for filing a subsequent request for correction as stipulated in Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Plaintiff filed a petition for grievance with the Defendant for seeking a refund of global income tax paid on July 16, 2015 (hereinafter “instant en banc Decision”). Accordingly, the Defendant issued a refund ex officio correction of global income tax for the year 2009 and 2010, but the global income tax for the year 2007 and 208 was excluded from the object of grievance settlement on account

D. On August 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a subsequent request for correction (hereinafter “instant request for correction”) with the Defendant on September 13, 2016: (a) global income tax for 2007; (b) commercialization; (c) commercialization; (d) commercialization; (d) global income tax for 2008; and (d) commercialization; and (b) global income tax for 2009; (c) global income tax for 2009; (d) global income tax for 2010; and (d) international income tax for 2010; and (d) the Defendant dismissed the said request for correction (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

E. On October 25, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant decision of dismissal, and filed an objection against the Defendant on October 25, 2016, the Defendant rejected the objection on December 6, 2016, and the Plaintiff again filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 10, 2017, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on April 25, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers in case of additional numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. Summary of the defense

The plaintiff filed a claim for correction to the defendant after the expiration of the period for filing a claim for correction under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and even if the defendant rejected the plaintiff's claim for correction, it does not constitute a rejection disposition subject to appeal.

B. Determination

1) According to Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a person who has received the determination of the tax base and amount of national tax may file a request for correction within three months from the date when the grounds for the subsequent request for correction arise. Meanwhile, a request for correction filed after the lapse of the period for filing a request for correction does not constitute a disposition of refusal that is subject to appeal, even if the tax authority rejected the correction, since the tax authority did not have an obligation to make a determination, rectification, or a rejection disposition, on the grounds that the request for correction filed after the lapse of the period for filing a request for correction was illegal, and thus, the request for correction cannot be deemed a disposition of refusal that is subject to appeal, even if the tax authority rejected the correction. Furthermore, the latter request for correction is made on the grounds that the existence of the transaction or act, which is the basis for calculating the tax base and amount of national tax, or the legal effect differs after the statutory due date for filing the initial return or taxation, and the interpretation of the statutes differs from the time of the initial report, determination, or correction (see, etc.).

2) We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles. The Plaintiff’s submission of the grounds for the subsequent request for correction in this case does not change in the interpretation of the statutes due to the instant en banc decision. As such, the starting point of calculating the period for filing the subsequent request for correction by the Plaintiff is July 1, 2013, on which the Plaintiff paid the additional collection charges. The starting point of calculating the period for filing the subsequent request for correction by the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff was July 1, 2013, and it is apparent that the period for filing the instant request for correction was reached three months after the date of the payment of the said additional collection charges. Ultimately, the Defendant did not correct the tax base and tax amount regarding the instant request for correction or refuse the instant disposition, and thus, even if the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the refusal of the instant request for correction, this does not constitute an appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.