2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On January 16, 2014, the Seoul Western District Court sentenced 1 year and six months of imprisonment and KRW 1,088,566,031 of the penalty surcharge to the crime of breach of trust, etc., stating that “The Plaintiff received KRW 1,088,566,031 in total in receipt of illegal solicitation from ○○○○ and △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, while working as the agent of the corporate business team, from 2007 to 201 as the team leader,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 14, 2014. The Plaintiff fully paid the penalty surcharge on August 26, 2014.

B. On March 16, 2015, the Defendant deemed KRW 1,088,566,031, which the Plaintiff received as a result of the crime of taking property in breach of trust as other income, and imposed KRW 203,236,220 on the Plaintiff on March 16, 2015.

C. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has previously held that a tax liability should be imposed under the Income Tax Act even in cases where the judgment of additional collection of illegal income by criminal act became final and conclusive in a criminal case (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du431, May 10, 2002). However, through the en banc Decision 2014Du5514, Jul. 16, 2015, even if the tax liability was established once the tax liability was met due to the fulfillment of the taxation requirements on illegal income, the possibility of loss of economic income inherent in the illegal income such as confiscation or additional collection becomes final and conclusive as not realizing income, barring any special circumstance, if the tax liability established becomes invalid due to the occurrence of a post-ex post-explosionation, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the taxpayer can be exempted from bearing the tax liability by filing the post-explosion request for correction as stipulated in Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection on July 30, 2015, but was dismissed for the reason of the period of application, and on August 19, 2015, the Defendant filed a request for correction on the ground of the ex post facto reasons to the Defendant. However, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that “The Defendant, on the ground that the judgment was effective only between the relevant parties, making it identical, does not constitute a ground for ex post facto request for correction according to the judgment, and the period of imposition for taxation for the portion reverted to 2007, has already been in effect, and thus, is unlawful.”

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 4, 2015, but the appeal was dismissed on December 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including evidence attached with a serial number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As can be seen through the instant en banc decision, the circumstance that the Plaintiff fully paid the surcharge constitutes grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction as prescribed by Article 45-2(2)5 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 13552, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) and Article 25-2 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

2) If a subsequent request for correction is filed within two (2) months from the date on which it becomes known that there exists such cause, it shall be sufficient and shall not be limited to the exclusion period for imposition of the initial taxation

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 45-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, while the Plaintiff’s payment of a surcharge on August 26, 2014 constitutes grounds for a request for ex post facto correction under Article 45-2 (2) 5 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was aware of the occurrence of the grounds for ex post facto request for correction when the en banc Decision was rendered on July 16, 2015. However, in light of the content and structure of the relevant statutes and the relevant system, “the date on which the following grounds occur” under Article 45-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes means not “the date on which the relevant grounds become grounds for ex post request for correction,” but rather means “the date on which the relevant facts themselves become grounds for a request for ex post request for correction.”

In the instant case, the day when the Plaintiff became aware of the occurrence of the grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction, which was alleged by the Plaintiff, shall be August 26, 2014. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for correction, which was filed two months after the period for filing a claim for correction, is unlawful (the Plaintiff should have filed an appeal against the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 203,236,220, which belongs to the Defendant in 207, and have not any other evidence to support the existence of the grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction.)

Therefore, although the grounds for the instant disposition that the Defendant rendered are somewhat inappropriate, it is legitimate to conclude that the Plaintiff’s subsequent request for correction is unlawful. Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)

1) Inasmuch as a subsequent request for correction is made on the grounds of post-declaration that had not existed at the time of the initial return or taxation, the grounds such as whether a transaction or act, which is the basis of the calculation of the tax base and the amount of tax, exists after the statutory due date of return of the national tax, or the legal effect thereof vary, may be included in the subsequent reasons prescribed in Article 45-2(2)5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, but the grounds that the statutory interpretation of the statutes differs from the time of the initial report, determination or correction are not included therein (Supreme Court Decision 2012Du28254 Decided November 27, 201