Five-year assessment period for earned income omitted from a year-end settlement

Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check

7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25

A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).

Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)

Lower-court contrast & scope of application

Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding

Lower-court context: The Suwon High Court, in its judgment of 4 November 2020 (2019Nu13547), rejected the plaintiff's argument that the 2009 assessment was made after the five-year period had passed. It reasoned that the plaintiff filed no comprehensive income tax return for the income of KRW 407,232,267 by the statutory filing deadline of 31 May 2010 and none by the additional filing and payment deadline of 30 June 2015 set by the notice of change in income amount, so the period was seven years.

Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the seven-year period applies only to a resident who filed no return at all, and that an omission from a year-end settlement, where income tax was paid, must be treated like under-reporting, so the five-year period applies unless there are special circumstances. It found that the evidence lawfully admitted showed the plaintiff also received salaries from Company HS Biopharm and Company Hwasung Biopharm in 2009, and that the court below should have examined whether the plaintiff had any income besides those salaries and whether year-end settlement had been made and tax paid for them before fixing the period. The appellate judgment misapprehended the law on the assessment period and failed to hold that inquiry, so the part concerning the 2009 assessment was reversed and remanded, while the appeal was dismissed as to the rest.

Distinguishing conditions

• A resident who had income other than earned income in the relevant year, so that the Article 73(1)(i) exemption for a person with only earned income does not reach him.
• A case in which the withholding agent did not pay the income tax through year-end settlement, since Article 73(4) of the former Income Tax Act withdraws the Article 73(1) exception in that case.
• A case with special circumstances, since the Court stated the five-year period only in the absence of such circumstances.

Record verification notes

Establish from the file whether the taxpayer had only earned income in the relevant year and which employers paid it, then whether each payment was settled through a year-end settlement with the tax paid, because the five-year period turns on that settlement. Fix the statutory versions: the decision applied Article 26-2(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 70(1), Article 73(1)(i) and Article 73(4) of the Income Tax Act, all as they stood before the amendments of 27 December 2010. Note also that the 2011 part of the same judgment survived, the Court finding no error in treating the plaintiff as a director who actually controlled the company's management under the proviso in parentheses in Article 106(1)(i) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

From the official text

Points at issue

근로소득만 있는 거주자가 연말정산에 의하여 소득세를 납부하였으나 연말정산에서 누락된 다른 근로소득이 있는 경우 그 소득세에 대한 부과제척기간(=5년)

Summary of the holding

The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.

Order

원심판결 중 2009년 귀속 종합소득세 204,344,940원(가산세 포함)의 부과처분에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 수원고등법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.

Provisions referred to

구 국세기본법(2010. 12. 27. 법률 제10405호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제26조의2 제1항 제2호(현행 제26조의2 제2항 제1호 참조), 제3호(현행 제26조의2 제1항 참조), 구 소득세법(2010. 12. 27. 법률 제10408호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제70조 제1항, 제73조 제1항 제1호, 제4항