2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the assertion that the Plaintiff added or emphasized in the trial at the trial, and therefore, the reasoning for the judgment at the trial at the trial is stated in the part of the reasoning for the judgment at the trial. Thus, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2

2. The addition;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, a lessee of the instant land, concluded a lease modification contract for the instant land (hereinafter “the instant modification contract”) under mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, a lessor of the instant land; (b) the validity of the instant modification contract cannot be denied on the ground that the special relationship between the two parties is established; and (c) the tax authority should assume the premise that the tax authority recalculated, determines, or disposes of the amount of income during the pertinent taxable period. In the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s claim for correction was based on the contract under mutual agreement between the lessor and the lessee, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for correction cannot be applied, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Whether an administrative disposition is unlawful shall be determined on the basis of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as at the time the administrative disposition was made. It shall not be affected by the amendment or repeal of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or changes in the actual state (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1811, May 11, 2007). If a taxpayer keeps books and records pursuant to the relevant tax-related Acts, the investigation and determination of the relevant tax base may be determined on the basis of the facts examined by the Government, if the entry of books and records are different from the facts or omissions in the records are found based on the relevant books and supporting documents. As such, the following circumstances revealed in the above facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., ① the Seoul Director of the Regional Tax Office did not enter into a revised lease agreement with the Plaintiff that it was difficult to apply the increased rent of the instant building retroactively to the Plaintiff by reflecting the difference between the Plaintiff and the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s actual change in the rent of the instant case and the Plaintiff’s actual change in the rent of the instant land.

2) Furthermore, the grounds cited by the Defendant as one of the grounds for the instant disposition cannot be deemed to be directly related to the instant disposition. As seen earlier, a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the instant land concluded before the instant change agreement is subject to the avoidance of unfair act and calculation. Aside from the possibility of causing a change in the taxable income of the Plaintiff by receiving a further payment by the Plaintiff under the instant change agreement, it means that the Plaintiff’s response to the necessary expenses is not immediately acknowledged and the Defendant’s tax disposition based on the unfair act and calculation panel is not premised on the premise that the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff was imposed by the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion related to the omission of unfair act and calculation panel is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.