beta
Text
1. Additional tax for the interim prepayment for the year 2012, which the Defendant had against the Plaintiff on March 8, 2013, KRW 6,639,063.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that operates a truck terminal facility at 451 Simpo-dong, Simpo-si.
B. On March 25, 2012, the Plaintiff reported corporate tax for the business year 2011 as “calculated tax amount of KRW 3,140,927,424; KRW 1,658,463,712; and KRW 519,319,29,290”.
C. On August 23, 2012, when the Plaintiff filed an interim prepayment return of corporate tax for the business year 2012, the Plaintiff filed and paid the tax amount calculated for the immediately preceding business year by applying the corporate tax rate under the amended Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11128, Dec. 31, 2011); and the deductible tax amount shall be KRW 2,857,206,749, and the deductible tax amount shall be KRW 1,658,463,712, without calculating the amount of tax for interim prepayment.
The Defendant, on March 8, 2013, issued a revised notice of KRW 148,49,400 of the corporate tax for the business year 2012, including KRW 6,639,063, on December 8, 2012, on the ground that the amount of the corporate tax reduced or exempted when calculating the amount of the tax for interim prepayment pursuant to Article 51 of the Addenda to the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Special Provisions"), should be re-calculated by applying the amended provisions of Article 132(1) of the Special Provisions.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition of imposing additional tax for unfaithful payment”). E.
On May 28, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition of additional tax, filed a request for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal, and received a decision of dismissal on September 4, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition of additional tax in this case is legitimate
A. The plaintiff 1's assertion is based on Article 51 of the Addenda of the amended Act on Special Cases Concerning the Additional Taxes. Article 132 (1) of the same Act.