Seocho 2017west 5116, 206.22)

Business of the Housing Construction and Sales Business is not at the time of by-products sales but at the time of sales;

It is reasonable to see that the commencement of business of the Housing Construction and Sales Business is not the time of sale by-products but the time of sale by-products, and it is clear that the income of housing business commenced does not fall short of 150 million won, and therefore, it does not constitute a person subject to

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

2018Guhap78046 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Income Tax Refund

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

August 22, 2019

September 24, 2019

1. The part requesting revocation of the disposition rejecting the refund of global income tax among the instant lawsuit and the total final tax amount;

The part of a request for revocation of the imposition of global income tax in excess of 0 won shall be dismissed, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Optionally, the Defendant’s global income tax for the year 2016 on September 0, 2017 against the Plaintiff.

A disposition rejecting refund of KRW 0 shall be revoked, or the defendant against the plaintiff on September 0, 2017

The imposition of KRW 0 of the global income tax for the year 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was dismissed on May 0, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal”) while serving as the BB Center of Aaa Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Aa”).

B. On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the CC Committee, and on September 0, 2014, the Ccc Committee rendered a judgment citing the above request for relief on the ground that the disciplinary action is excessive (hereinafter referred to as “the initial trial court of this case”).

C. On October 24, 2014, AA filed an application for review of the instant first inquiry tribunal with D Labor Relations Commission on October 24, 2014, and D Labor Relations Commission, on January 14, 2015, rendered a ruling dismissing a request for review under Aa (hereinafter referred to as “instant decision for review”).

D. Aa filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Administrative Court seeking the revocation of the instant decision on review, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing a claim under Aa on August 0, 2015 (hereinafter “the judgment of the first instance court of this case”).

E. Aa appealed against the judgment of the first instance court of this case. On February 0, 2016, when the appellate trial was in progress, an agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the following (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”) and the said case was concluded as the withdrawal of the lawsuit on July 20, 2016.

F. On February 0, 2016, aa paid 0 won for the agreed amount under the instant agreement (hereinafter “instant agreed amount”) to the Plaintiff on February 0, 2016, under the premise that the instant agreed amount is an income falling under the “compensation” under Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act, only 0 won for income tax and 0 won for local income tax, and only the remainder that the Defendant withheld and paid to the Plaintiff.

G. On May 0, 2017, when the Plaintiff filed a global income tax return for the year of 2016, the Plaintiff returned KRW 0 of the global income tax amount calculated by deducting the instant agreed amount from other income, deducting KRW 0 of the withholding tax amount for the instant agreed amount from the global income tax amount.

H. On September 0, 2017, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff underreported the other income tax on global income for the year 2016, and calculated the total determined amount of the global income tax for the year 2016 by adding the instant agreement to other income (including additional taxes) as zero won (including additional taxes). The Defendant deducted the withholding tax amount of the instant agreed amount as the already paid tax amount, thereby increasing the amount of KRW 0 of the global income tax (hereinafter “previous disposition”).

I. On October 0, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the previous disposition of this case and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On June 0, 2018, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to rectify the tax base and tax amount by deeming the amount of KRW 0 as benefits from May 2014 to January 2016, as not other income, and to dismiss the remainder of the appeal (hereinafter “instant tax appeal decision”).

(j) On July 0, 2018, the Defendant, according to the instant tax judgment, excluded KRW 0 from other income, reduced the total amount of global income tax for the year 2016, and refunded KRW 0,000, which is the difference between the total amount of tax assessed in the instant previous disposition and the total amount of tax assessed in the instant previous disposition (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”); and on July 0, 2018, refunded the Plaintiff the amount calculated by adding additional dues to KRW 0,00,00, after deducting the amount of tax assessed in the instant previous disposition from the amount of tax refundable to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding revocation of the disposition rejecting the refund of global income tax

1) Where a person liable to pay global income tax files a return on the tax base and amount of global income tax pursuant to Article 70(1) of the Income Tax Act, and subsequently the disposition of correcting the tax base and amount of global income tax pursuant to Article 80(2) due to omissions or errors in the details of the return, the disposition of revising the tax base and amount of global income tax is a disposition of re-determination of a single tax base and amount of tax as a whole by including the increased portion, not only the tax base and amount of tax originally reported but also the increased portion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu

2) Examining the facts acknowledged earlier in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the previous disposition of this case was merely a single disposition that the Defendant corrected the tax base and amount of global income tax reported by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 80(2) of the Income Tax Act, and does not mean that the previous disposition of this case was divided into two separates, and thus, did not constitute a separate disposition of refusal of global income tax refund and imposition of global income tax. There is no evidence to find otherwise that the Defendant rendered a disposition of refusal of global income tax refund, such as the written purport of the claim, against the Plaintiff. Therefore,

B. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax on the ex officio revoked tax amount

1) Since a disposition of reduction or correction results in the effect of partially cancelling the amount of tax when a disposition of reduction or correction, a lawsuit seeking revocation of the amount of tax already cancelled by the decision of reduction or correction is unlawful as there is no lawsuit for administrative disposition that does not exist any other lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Du7370, Mar. 13, 2014; 201Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012).

2) On July 0, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to reduce the total amount of the previous disposition from KRW 0 to KRW 0 according to the instant tax adjudication decision, and refunded the said amount and KRW 0 equivalent to the difference between the amount of the previous disposition and the amount of the withholding tax as to the instant amount. As seen earlier, among the instant lawsuit, the claim for revocation of the portion exceeding KRW 0,000,000, which was revoked ex officio in the instant previous disposition, is the subject of an administrative disposition for which no legal interest exists, and thus, it is unlawful as there is no legal interest.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful (determination on the claim for money)

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate on the grounds of the reasons for the disposition and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the agreement of this case constitutes "Dispute Settlement" that the plaintiff and Aa shall pay in the course of agreement to terminate disputes surrounding the dismissal of this case, and that the agreement of this case cannot be viewed as "rewards" under Article 21 (1) 17 of the former Income Tax Act, and that the disposition of this case is unlawful since it does not fall under the category of income

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act provides as one of the other income for “compensation” refers to money and valuables provided as a means of a case in connection with administrative affairs or provision of services, etc., and whether it constitutes such money and valuables should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the motive and purpose of receiving the pertinent money and valuables, relationship with the other party, amount, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da17729, Jul. 20, 2018), and the amount paid as a case for cooperation to resolve disputes promptly and smoothly.

In the case of commodities, it can be seen that Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act constitutes other income in light of various circumstances, such as the details and amount of payment of the money in question.

2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) although the agreement of this case acknowledged that the employment relationship between the plaintiff and A has terminated smoothly with each other, although the agreement of this case was found to be unfair due to the initial inquiry court and review ruling of this case, and the judgment of the first instance court of this case, (ii) the agreement of this case was confirmed to be an implementation measure following the initial inquiry court and review ruling of this case, and (iii) the agreement of this case was completely withdrawn from all civil litigation, criminal procedure, civil procedure, civil petition, etc. against the incumbent officers and employees of Aa and Aaa, and the agreement of this case did not harm or insult among them in connection with legal disputes so far, and it was difficult to view that the agreement of this case was valid from 200 years to 20 years to 20 years to 40 years to 20 years to 20 years to 30 years to 30 years to 40 years to 40 years to 20 years to 200.

4. Conclusion

As such, the part concerning the revocation of the disposition rejecting the refund of global income tax among the lawsuit in this case and the part concerning the revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax exceeding 0 won in total amount of the final tax, all of the claims are dismissed. The remaining claims of the plaintiff seeking the revocation of the disposition in this case are dismissed as without merit