Gwangju High Court 2008Nu1404 ( October 09, 2008)

Gwangju District Court 2008Guhap259 (No. 24, 2008)

(Trial without Trial) A report of capital gains tax shall not be a disposition subject to an appeal litigation.

(C) If a tax authority refuses to file a request for a correction of reduction, the tax return is deemed to have become final and conclusive by filing a report on tax base and amount of tax with the tax authority, and such report cannot be deemed to have been subject to appeal litigation. The tax authority’s rejection of the request is only entitled to seek the revocation thereof.

Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 22 (Determination of Tax Liability)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Although all of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, the argument on the grounds of appeal by the appellant falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal and thus, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

[Judgment of the lower court] Gwangju High Court 2008Nu1404 ( October 09, 2008)

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 8,839,210 against the Plaintiff on May 31, 2007 and KRW 883,920 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 24, 1996, the Plaintiff purchased and acquired 81,274,000 square meters from ○○ City, ○○○○○-dong, 1360- ○○ 326.7 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) in price, and transferred 106,00,000 won to ○○○ on March 19, 207.

B. On May 29, 2007, the Plaintiff voluntarily paid KRW 8,839,210 as well as KRW 883,920 as well as KRW 9,723,130 as to the Defendant’s transfer of the instant land.

C. On August 27, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a national tax appeal on the ground that it is unreasonable to apply the tax rate to the transfer of non-business land under the Income Tax Act in calculating the transfer income amount for the transfer of land in this case with the National Tax Tribunal, but the National Tax Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that there was no disposition on October 24, 200

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and the issues of this case

A. The parties' assertion

As to the plaintiff's assertion that applying the tax rate on the transfer of non-business land under the Income Tax Act is unfair in calculating the transfer income tax on the transfer of land in this case, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff voluntarily paid each tax in relation to the transfer income tax and resident tax on the transfer of land in this case, and that the defendant did not make any disposition against the plaintiff, and therefore, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it does not

B. Key issue of the instant case

Therefore, the key issue of the instant case is, first, whether the instant lawsuit was a disposition seeking its revocation in the instant lawsuit, that is, whether the instant lawsuit is legitimate, and if the instant lawsuit is lawful, whether the applicable tax rate for the land transfer is legitimate.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

First of all, the instant lawsuit is a legitimate health care unit and capital gains tax, and unlike local taxes, a taxpayer's tax return method becomes final and conclusive by filing a tax base and amount of tax with the tax authority, and such report cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal litigation, and no other taxation disposition by the tax authority exists.

However, with respect to the national tax by the method of return and payment, the appeal can be filed by the method of request for reduction and correction, and if the tax authority rejects it, only can seek revocation

Therefore, as seen earlier, insofar as the Plaintiff voluntarily paid the capital gains tax and resident tax on the transfer of the instant land, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it does not have any disposition seeking its revocation.

4. Conclusion

If so, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff.