Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-84290 ( October 14, 2017)

Cho High-2016-Seoul Government-2680 ( October 18, 2016)

Since the period for filing a subsequent request for correction has expired, the revocation lawsuit against the rejection of correction is unlawful.

Since a request for correction filed after the lapse of the period for filing a request for correction is illegal and thus the tax authority does not have a duty to either determine or rectify the tax base and amount of tax or to take a disposition of refusal, it shall not be deemed a disposition of refusal subject to appeal even if the tax authority

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

2017Nu65731. Revocation of the detailed global income and the disposition of rejecting a request for rectification

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap84290 decided July 14, 2017

October 19, 2017

November 9, 2017

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's rejection disposition of correction seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2007 against the plaintiff on May 26, 2016 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

This Court's explanation concerning this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in the second to fourth, 3 to 9) except for partial contents as follows. Thus, this Court's explanation is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) The main part shall be the part

The first instance court's decision No. 6 of the first instance court's decision (hereinafter "the rejection disposition of this case") is "(hereinafter "the notification of this case")".

2. Relevant statutes;

This Court's explanation is the same as the 8 to 9 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court's explanation is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 45-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 13552, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) provides that "Any person who has received the determination of the tax base and amount of national taxes may file a request for correction within two months from the date on which he/she becomes aware that any of the grounds falling under any of the following subparagraphs has occurred." Thus, a request for correction filed after the lapse of the period for filing the request for correction is illegal and the tax authority has no obligation to determine or rectify the tax base and amount of tax or to refuse the correction. Thus, even if the tax authority has rejected the correction, it cannot be deemed a rejection disposition subject to an appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du4830, Mar. 12,

Such later request for correction is based on the later reasons that had not existed at the time of the initial return or tax assessment. As such, the grounds such as whether a transaction or act, which is the basis of the calculation of the tax base and the amount of tax, exists after the statutory due date of return of the relevant national tax, or where its legal effect varies, etc. may be included in the later reasons prescribed in Article 45-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, but the grounds that the statutory interpretation of the statutes differs from the time of the initial return, decision, or correction are not included therein (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du28254, Nov. 27,

As such, insofar as a change in interpretation of statutes does not constitute grounds for ex post facto request for correction, if a taxpayer files a request for correction on the grounds of the existence of grounds for ex post request for correction rather than on the grounds of such change in interpretation, the starting point of calculating the period for filing a request for correction shall be deemed “the date on which the relevant grounds have known the occurrence,” barring any special circumstances,” rather than “the date on which the relevant grounds have become known that the relevant grounds have occurred.” (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Du38812, Aug. 23, 2017).

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, in light of the aforementioned relevant statutes, legal principles, and facts acknowledged as seen earlier, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it does not constitute a ground for revocation of the instant notification, provided that the Plaintiff’s claim for correction filed with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim filed with the lapse of the period for filing a subsequent claim for correction does not constitute grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction.

1) On March 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction on the grounds of the payment of a surcharge, the Supreme Court en banc Decision, the Defendant’s ex officio revocation of the imposition of global income tax for the year 2006, etc. (Evidence B) with respect to the imposition of global income tax on the Defendant for the imposition of global income tax for the year 2007, on the grounds of the subsequent request for correction (Evidence B). On February 24, 2016 in the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that the dismissal of the judgment following the ex officio revocation (Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu000 Decided February 24, 2016) constituted a subsequent cause.

2) However, since a subsequent request for correction is made on the grounds of post-declaration that had not existed at the time of the initial return or taxation, the reasons such as whether there was a transaction or act, which is the basis of calculating the tax base and the amount of tax, or where the legal effect varies after the statutory due date of return of the national tax, can be included in the subsequent reasons as prescribed by Article 45-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. However, since the interpretation of the statutes differs from the time of the initial return, determination, or correction, it does not include the reasons why the statutory interpretation was changed. Thus, if the decision of collection became final and conclusive in a criminal case as to illegal income due to the issuance of the en banc decision of this case, the interpretation that it is not subject to taxation under the Income Tax Act does not constitute the grounds for subsequent request for correction (excluding the appeal lawsuit seeking the revocation of the said taxation if the tax authority rendered a tax disposition on the grounds that the tax liability for illegal income was established after the final and conclusive in a criminal case after

3) In addition, the revocation ex officio of the imposition of global income tax for the year 2006 and the rejection judgment (Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu0000) due to the relevant ex officio revocation are also included in the "if the transaction or act, etc., which served as the basis for calculating the tax base and the amount of tax in the initial return, determination or correction becomes final and conclusive as different by the judgment (including any reconciliation or other act having the same effect as the judgment) in the lawsuit against it, or if the cause prescribed by Presidential Decree occurs after the statutory due date of return of the relevant national tax becomes final and conclusive, it is difficult to view it as the subsequent reasons for global income tax for the global income tax for the year 2007. In addition, the circumstance that the imposition of global income tax for the year 2006 is revoked ex officio does not directly affect the imposition of global income tax for the year 207, which is at issue in this case.

4) The circumstance that the Plaintiff paid a surcharge on September 4, 2012 constitutes grounds for filing a subsequent request for correction. However, as the Plaintiff filed a request for correction regarding the imposition of global income tax for the year 2007, March 28, 2016, the subsequent request for correction in the instant case is obviously unlawful, since it is apparent that the subsequent request for correction was filed two months after the date on which the relevant grounds were known.

5) Therefore, the instant notice cannot be deemed a rejection disposition subject to appeal, and thus, is unlawful in the instant lawsuit seeking its revocation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as per Disposition.