Seoul Administrative Court-2018-Gu Partnership-4779 ( December 20, 2018)

Review-2018-Income-002 (29 March 2018)

Whether the plaintiffs have provided personal service as an independent business operator, and whether the right to receive a legitimate tax investigation is infringed.

Where the facts of taxation requirements are sufficiently recognized, it may be taxed without conducting a tax investigation, and the Plaintiffs provided the instant service under the direction of the representative of the corporation, and the instant service cannot be deemed separate from the purchase of the corporation’s automobile.

Articles 14 and 16 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Articles 19 and 20 of the Income Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2019Nu32063 Total income and revocation of disposition

AA and 1

CC Head of the tax office and 1

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2018Guhap4779 decided December 20, 2018

June 10, 2019

July 17, 2019

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The imposition of the global income tax for the year 201, the global income tax for the year 201, the global income tax for 57,525,980 won, the global income tax for the year 2012, the global income tax for 44,947,000 won, the global income tax for the year 2013, the global income tax for 43,909,210 won for the year 2014, and the imposition of the global income tax for the year 2014 (including each additional tax), and the imposition of the Defendant DDB to the Plaintiff BB on August 1, 2017, the imposition of the global income tax for the year 2012, the global income tax for 72,856,209 won, the global income tax for the year 2013, the global income tax for 53,318,928 won, the global income tax for the year 2014, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation and revision of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why this Court is used for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following parts to 3 pages 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Parts]

The plaintiffs asserts to the effect that "the defendant's prior notice of taxation without any on-site investigation is in violation of Article 63-14 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes."

Article 81-15 (1) 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "any person who has received a notice of pre-announcement of taxation prescribed by Presidential Decree may request the head of a tax office or the director of a regional tax office who has received such notice within 30 days from the date of receipt of such notice to examine the legality of such notice." Article 63-14 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29534, Feb. 12, 2019) provides that "pre-announcement of taxation prescribed by Presidential Decree in Article 81-15 (1) 2 of the Act means any of the following:" while subparagraph 2 of the same Article provides that "pre-announcement of taxation shall be notified by the head of a tax office or the director of a regional tax office

However, in light of the purport and text of the above relevant laws and regulations, Article 63-14 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes is merely interpreted as concurrently stipulating "tax data on persons other than the relevant taxpayer," and "on-site investigation", and it does not necessarily mean that the above provision must undergo on-site investigation when giving notice of prior notice of taxation. The plaintiffs' assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.