º»¹® ¹Ù·Î°¡±â ÁÖ¸Þ´º·Î ¹Ù·Î°¡±â
All
TITLE Supreme Court Decision 2018Du61888 Decided January 9, 2020 ¡¼Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Rectification of Customs Duty¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] The purpose of Article 38-3(3) of the Customs Act that allows the retrospective filing of a request for the correction of tax notice and the meaning of ¡°where any transaction, act, etc. becomes final and conclusive as different by a ruling of the relevant lawsuit,¡± which is stipulated as one of the reasons for the retrospective filing of a request for the correction of tax assessment under Article 34(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act
[2] In a criminal trial procedure where a judgment became final and conclusive based on the decision on the existence or scope of tax liability, whether it constitutes a case ¡°where any transaction or act, etc., which is the basis of calculating the duty base and the amount of duty in the first declaration or rectification, becomes final and conclusive as different by a ruling¡± as illustrated under Article 38-3(3) of the Customs Act and Article 34(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (negative in principle)
[3] In the case where: (a) Party A, who runs an online shopping mall and takes orders from domestic customers for British goods, filed an import declaration, making domestic customers liable for duties and identifying the goods delivered as small-sum goods subject to the reduction or exemption of customs duties under Article 94 Subparag. 4 of the Customs Act; (b) the head of the relevant customs office levied customs duties and additional duties for underreporting on Party A for the confirmation of the violation of the Customs Act; (c) having been indicted for the violation of the Customs Act in relation to the foregoing facts and receiving a not guilty ruling that became final and conclusive, Party A filed a request for the correction of the relevant tax notice, which was dismissed by the head of the relevant customs office, the case holding that the lower court erred in having determined that the transaction or act, which served as the basis for calculating the duty base and the amount of duty in the first tax notice, became final and conclusive as different by the relevant criminal judgment, which acquitted Party A, by misapprehending the legal doctrine
Prev Supreme Court Decision 2016Du35854, 35861, 35878, 35885, 35892, 35908 Decided January 16, 2020 ¡¼Revocation of Disposition Imposing Corporate Tax; Revocation of Disposition Imposing Local Income Tax; Revocation of Disposition Imposing Local Income Tax; Revocation of Disposition Imposing Local Income Tax; Revocation of Disposition Imposing Local Income Tax; Revocation of Disposition Imposing Local Income Tax¡½
Next Supreme Court Decision 2019Da218462 Decided December 27, 2019 ¡¼Lawsuit Claiming for Charter Fees¡½
219 Seocho-ro,Seocho-gu,Seoul 06590,Republic of Korea 02-3480-1100