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

A. On June 30, 200, the Plaintiff: (a) sold 00,00-0,00-0,000 and 11,470 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the two lands of this case”) for OO Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “O Construction”); (b) sold KRW 8.20,000,000,000,000 for 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 2,000,000,000,000; (c) KRW 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00.

C. In addition, on June 1, 2006, the Defendant classified the amount of KRW 23,522,00,000 calculated in accordance with the ratio of the area occupied by the land No. 3 of this case among the land of this case among the above KRW 1,465,456,250, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 114,895,810, the global income tax for the year 2003 (hereinafter “the disposition imposing global income tax of this case”).

D. On March 12, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction against the Defendant to impose the transfer income tax of this case (hereinafter “instant request for correction”), but the Defendant rejected it on the ground that the period for filing a request for correction has expired (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the request, filed a request for adjudication with the Tax Tribunal on September 1, 2010 after filing an objection on April 10, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on November 29, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

As stated in the complaint, we interpret the purport of the claim sought by the Plaintiff as seeking cancellation of the disposition imposing the transfer income tax of this case, and examine ex officio the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case.

In the case of an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, it must undergo the pre-trial procedure as stipulated by the Framework Act on National Taxes, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had gone through the pre-trial procedure on the disposition of imposing the transfer income tax of this case (the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff was dismissed on September 25, 2006, which was dissatisfied with the disposition of imposing the transfer income tax of this case on September 25, 2006, although the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial on the grounds of the lapse of the time limit for filing the request. Accordingly, even if following the claim for administrative appeal, etc., which is a telegraph procedure, is unlawful on the ground that it does not meet the

[Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition imposing the capital gains tax of this case is unlawful and invalid as it imposed on other income, and thus, it is not subject to the restriction of the filing period. In addition, the taxation disposition that misleads the facts or legal relations subject to taxation, is accurate, and is based on factual data.

Only after investigation can clarify the existence of the defect, the taxation disposition cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002). Furthermore, as long as the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the disposition imposing the transfer income tax of this case as alleged in the Plaintiff’s claim, it cannot be seen as seeking a revocation lawsuit with the meaning of declaring invalidation even if the Plaintiff acted against the Plaintiff’s claim. However, even in the case of revocation lawsuit with the meaning of declaring invalidation, the restriction of the filing period is applicable, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Therefore, the court of this case may dismiss the lawsuit of this case without any need to make a decision on the merits concerning the disposition of imposing the income tax of this case. However, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful, and if the plaintiff does not make a decision on this issue, it may bring an appeal against the judgment of this case and bring an appeal again, which may undermine the economy of litigation, and thus, it should be examined next as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate (preliminary determination)

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation against the Defendant on the instant disposition of global income tax, and around 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant received ex officio revocation of the portion exceeding 50% of the instant disposition of global income tax, and the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the lawsuit. In full view of the content of the instant recommendation of mediation, the written resolution of July 1, 2009, the National Tax Service’s questioning reply on September 24, 2009, etc., the amount received by the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant service agreement shall be deemed as not capital gains but as other income. Since the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that there was a ground for filing a request for correction of the instant disposition of transfer income tax after hearing the advice of the tax agent around March 2010, the Plaintiff’s filing a request for correction of the instant disposition of transfer income tax with the Defendant on March 12, 2010, the Defendant’s rejection of the instant disposition should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

C. Determination

1) First of all, we examine whether the request for correction in the instant case is recognized as grounds for filing a later request for correction under Article 45-2(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The following facts can be acknowledged based on the aforementioned evidence: ① The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant regarding the disposition imposing global income tax in this case as Incheon District Court 2007Guhap4708, and the Incheon District Court 25 June 2008, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s legal nature of the amount received from Oconstruction is combined and the Plaintiff’s legal nature of the amount is combined, and the income rate of 50% is applied in light of difficulty of proving necessary expenses paid by the Plaintiff, etc., and the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the disposition in this case to the Defendant on June 1, 2006, upon the imposition of global income tax of KRW 114,898,810, more than KRW 59,73290,000, which is more than the imposition of capital gains tax, and the Plaintiff immediately withdrawn the disposition in this case.

However, such recommendation or recommendation by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission cannot be deemed as having identified the legal nature of the amount that the Plaintiff received to Oconstruction. Considering that the amount subject to global income tax of this case, which was dealt with in the above recommendation, was viewed as other income by the Defendant, and its nature is different from that of the amount subject to the transfer income tax of this case, it cannot be deemed that the grounds for filing a subsequent request for correction under Article 45-2 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes exist.

[Order of the court below] Even if the above recommendation of adjustment constitutes a ground for filing a subsequent request for correction under Article 45-2 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it can be seen that the plaintiff's revocation of the lawsuit pursuant to the above recommendation of mediation on October 16, 2008 at any time when the plaintiff becomes aware of the occurrence of such ground. However, since the plaintiff filed the instant request for correction on March 12, 2010 after the deadline for filing the request for correction of two months from that time, it is unlawful as it was filed after the deadline for filing the request for correction.]

2) Therefore, since the instant claim for correction is unlawful, it cannot be deemed that there is any illegality in the Defendant’s rejection disposition of this case. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is rejected.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.